September 02, 2014, 01:55:46 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 - mb66energy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:41:07 AM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

+1

It will always be to late in the action.

Even (if and) when EVF becomes fast enough, wouldn't it be sort of mutually exclusive with a single lens reflex system?

IMO it depends on the resolution and the color accuracy of an EVF to replace "real" view finders. As stated above I would like to have both options user selectable in ONE camera.

Some forget that 7Ds(uccessor) might adress the market for photo&video journalists who need (again IMO) ONE versatile tool without fiddeling around with external view finders or other accessories.

2
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Features seen in the past and absent today
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:34:58 AM »
Dedicated aperture ring on lens (or body*)
Dedicated exp. time and ISO on body

... on a Canon EF or/and EF-M body

*really liked the idea in S95 and would like to see it on ALL Canon cameras.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 07:06:07 AM »

Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. Now, instead of just being able to pick up a new Canon body with ergonomics and functionality I already know how to use without even thinking about it, I have to expand my kit. That involves even more cost, a new set of lenses that largely duplicate what I have, learning a whole new camera system, etc. I like simplicity...one brand, one set of lenses, one type of button placement and menu system. It just sucks. :P

I really do understand what you feel. I have upgraded from 20D to 40D because the release button of the 20D stopped working properly. I haven't seen a large improvement of IQ between both. 600D bought to shoot movies - primarily to produce material for teaching physics and mathematics. I wanted to use macro and stronger tele capabilies and the flexibility of manual exposure. Again: Only minor improvements of photographic IQ. So I am still waiting to invest in a high end camera like 7Ds(uccessor) or 6D which are in reach financially.

Just wait (if you can) another round and Canon will come closer to Nikon ...

Another thing I never tried because my bodies aren't capable but your 5Diii seems to be capable of: Multiexposure. I found a hint that it reduces noise (what it has to do in theory) under the following link:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/LensAndCameraIssues/NoiseAndMultipleExposures.html
If you do landscape with a tripod it might be a solution for non-moving stuff ... ?

Best - Michael

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:45:39 AM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........
serenity now!

I try, I truthfully try, but it is like a car accident, you really don't want to look as you drive by but for some morbid reason you can't stop yourself. Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19", they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall?

I think I am not going to log in for a few days.

Had the same analogy in my mind and thought to write it down here but my english isn't good enough to describe that in one sentence ... like you did!

I LOOKED from time to time into the fight discussion but stayed away from discussing with some of the guys. And created a personal web page/blog with some galleries. To fill the galleries I had to check my highly entropic photo collections on hard disk for good enough photos. I found a lot of crap but some pearls or at least well made photos. It  was fun to check photos and think about reasons what is wrong with them, editing them slightly ... a good trip to the darkroom part of our hobby/passion/profession.

Best - Michael

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:32:42 AM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

Might be, but not for action and sports MOVIES ...

I think we have to open our minds in terms of viewfinder type too: There is not always and
"Alternative One" OR "Alternative Two" but an AND between them.

I expect(ed) the 7D tsuccessor to be a very flexible camera which satisfies a broad range of needs. I just think about photojournalists who need two bodies for two lenses and both, still shooting and movie shooting in moderately compact packages without external "gadgets".

Think about a combined OVF - EVF constructions (wasn't there a patent? SEARCH: http://www.photographybay.com/2010/01/25/canon-dslr-dual-image-viewfinder/) or a configurable automatic switch between OVF while shooting and EVF during movie mode ...

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Differences in color of lcd screens
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:19:14 PM »
Hello All,

I have a 5D3 and a 6D...the 6D's back screen seems a lot warmer.

Of course the final images are just fine from both.

I know you shouldn't be counting on it for exact representation of the image, but it would be nice if they were a closer in color temp.

Has anyone ever heard of having your screens calibrated to eliminate the difference?

Thanks...Arnie

I've never considered calibrating my screen, I use the camera in so many different lighting situations that a single calibration under one type of lighting will look poor somewhere else.

While some DSLR's let you adjust color, most are good enough in the standard mode.  My Nikon D800 in daylight had a slight green tint that was noticible, but it was the least of the issues.

The same here - I like consistent conditions of a camera so I do not set the brightness, use daylight WB all the time and am not interested to adjust the screen colors (shooting RAW).

I experienced the Canon displays as reliable tools to control exposure while photographing. WB control is IMO not really possible e.g. in the greenish light of a dense forest.

Someone stated that Canon displays are generally on the warmer side - I have never observed that. Comparing the Live View or Replay of images with the real scene gives impressive (at least in comparison with most computer screens) colour fidelity.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:53:16 AM »
@jakeymate:
Thanx for the shoots which make both cameras IQ a little bet more comparable. I think a better comparability which excludes the different MP counts of the sensors without resizing the final image files might produce the following procedure: Two shots where the object has the same size in the FINAL NON-SCALED image. This might exclude some aliasing artifacts between object and sensor structure.

For me it shows that Sony sensors are better in smoothness (thanks to the absence of disturbing read noise) compared to Canon sensors. Every bit of (1) coming closer to the real scene and (2) enlarged editing latitude is welcome.

But your images prove to ME that both cameras are tools to get absolutely stunning photos ... if, yes if the subject matters, the photographer has a vision of light and good technical abilities to put that vision into a jpg or a print, finally.

So I will stay with my so inferior 40D, 600D and EOS M and some great lenses for a while, taking photos and enjoying the race between camera brands ... and the audiences reactions!

Why exclude the megapixel count?

The D800 manages to trounce the the Mk3 sensor in that lower 36% of tone, DESPITE it having 14 more megapixels.

The raws are there if you want to look at NON SCALED images, although the 1:1 crops are non scaled.

The fact that the Mk3 still looks so poor even taken down to 1920 wide is even more telling. If you can see it at 1920, a third of it's actual resolution, then all you get on the full res is more detailed read noise.

The lack of detail in the print pattern is nothing to do with resolution and everything to do with the Canon sensor simply not seeing the detail at all.

If it did, the lower resolution would simply mean the detail was smaller, not not there at all.

To compare res for res, take the 100 Nikon crop and take it down by 77% and technically, it should look like the Mk3.

It doesn't.

You argued with resolution of fine structures so I presented my idea to get that comparable.

I assumed 100% crops because that is what i usually expect for comparisons like that - my fault.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:47:37 AM »
Personally, I think the more minimal range is closer to what the eye sees,


YOu'd be surprised. For the most part that is not the remotely the case.

Quote
so I agree that the first photo of yours doesn't look quite right.  Not enough contrast.  And that is why the more limited DR of the Canon sensor doesn't bother me.  Contrast is more important in both art and photography than capturing many subtle gradations of light and dark, in my opinion (and may actually be closer to what the eye sees).   

1. you can apply some more local contrast and tone mapping
2. high DR displays should be here by 2018 in full force

Hopefully and I am shure about that - I have seen LGs OLED TVs in some shops @ 5000€ - very expensive for a 50 inch screen but ... the quality is absolutely stunning just in the well lit room. I think a DR of 16 or 18 stops is easily achievable - it depends no longer on the screen tech but the related electronics. That combined with UHD and we can see the images from 2005 the first time on a matching display system in terms of resolution and DR.

@dak723
The system eye-brain has an overall DR of 20 stops but it uses indeed two sensor matrices with color (daylight) and b/w (night) sensors and the iris for fast response. But I think a DR of 10 or 11 bits is a realistic number for one view with same "sensor matrix" and fixed iris. With larger monitors and more DR it might be interesting to capture scenes just at higher DR - let your eye stroll throu the image and see more detail after adaption. Might be a new way of artistic expression.

A simple example for the vast range of sensibility of our eyes:
On a sunny day, 12 o'clock you have roughly 1000 Watts of incident light power per square meter.
Use a simple micro LED torch with a 5mm standard white led. It delivers 20 Milliwatts and you can easily see things on a 20 square meter area (a small room's walls, after adaption). Now you have only 1 Milliwatt per square meter.
The ration between them is 1000000:1 ...

9
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:32:49 AM »
So, let's fast forward 10+ years to where we have achieved the perfect sensor.  It can do the following:

-Record nearly infinite numbers of photons and scale to whatever pixels you want
-Expose and record every detail in any light over 0.01 LUX
-Record in 256-bits with DR surpassing anything our own eyes can even see
-Correct any and all optical defects in any and all lenses

So...if I had this sensor, you know what I would be?
BORED.
[...]

There is a lot truth in your idea about a perfect sensor and its influence to photographic ART.

For me the perfect sensor is user exchangeable. IMO lenses stay. Bodies user interface should be changed not too much ... But having e.g. 4 exchangeable sensors for 2 identical bodies would be really welcome.

I think about a
  12 MPix color sensor (ISO 200 - 6400 +)
  48 Mpix color sensor (ISO 50-1600 +)
  24 Mpix B/W sensor (ISO 400-25600 +)
each sensor coming with its corresponding processor.

But I think we will never see that ...

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Differences in color of lcd screens
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:19:13 AM »
Hello All,

I have a 5D3 and a 6D...the 6D's back screen seems a lot warmer.

Of course the final images are just fine from both.

I know you shouldn't be counting on it for exact representation of the image, but it would be nice if they were a closer in color temp.

Has anyone ever heard of having your screens calibrated to eliminate the difference?

Thanks...Arnie

I think both tips from neuro and NYCPHOTO are a good starting point. Just thinking about 6D's Wifi function: Perhaps a "calibrated" smart phone or minitablet might be a solution for color critical shots - "calibrated" means that the screen of the smartphone is tweaked to get the same color like the screen of the 5D. Don't know if the system of smartphones has that function but it is usually a unix clone and there should be a possibility to change the screen profile.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 04:12:18 AM »
@jakeymate:
Thanx for the shoots which make both cameras IQ a little bet more comparable. I think a better comparability which excludes the different MP counts of the sensors without resizing the final image files might produce the following procedure: Two shots where the object has the same size in the FINAL NON-SCALED image. This might exclude some aliasing artifacts between object and sensor structure.

For me it shows that Sony sensors are better in smoothness (thanks to the absence of disturbing read noise) compared to Canon sensors. Every bit of (1) coming closer to the real scene and (2) enlarged editing latitude is welcome.

But your images prove to ME that both cameras are tools to get absolutely stunning photos ... if, yes if the subject matters, the photographer has a vision of light and good technical abilities to put that vision into a jpg or a print, finally.

So I will stay with my so inferior 40D, 600D and EOS M and some great lenses for a while, taking photos and enjoying the race between camera brands ... and the audiences reactions!

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:37:47 AM »
Hi,

First post, be gentle :)

Since nine pages of words don't seem to have settled this issue, why not use the cameras for their purpose?

How about someone with both a 5D3 and a D810 (and no axe to grind) post 10 images from each camera? Resize the images so say 1920x1080, strip them of EXIF data and lets see if anyone will be able to tell the difference?

I bet not a single person (with the exception of the poster) will be able to 100% identify which camera took which image.

Regards,

Memnon

It's like a discussion about music without listening to the music. Or better:
A discussion about the sound of instruments without playing them.

13
EOS-M / Re: Finally a 50mm for EOS-M...
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:59:22 AM »
I think if Canon were to make a 50mm IS lens it should also have decent macro capabilities to have it fit multiple niches.

YESSSSSS!
I think 1:4 or 1:3 reproduction ratio is absolutely sufficient and avoids carrying an additional macro lens ... but please f/2 or larger!

14
EOS-M / Re: Well, someone believes in the future of the M.....
« on: August 30, 2014, 03:54:10 AM »
Or Samyang with their new 1.4 50:
http://www.samyang.co.uk/index.php/dslr-lenses/samyang-50mm-f-1-4-as-umc
+ the VDSLR optimized variant
(But I think they add a 22mm long tube so it is virtually the same with a EF-mount + adaptor)

If Canon adds a very good EVF to a new EOS M model, I will too believe in the future of the M system as a complementing type of camera: I really like the EOS M with the 18-55 which needs only a small lens compartment in my (small) photo back pack to give me a shooting-ready wide angle option ...

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:27:08 AM »
D800 -> D810

The 5dm3 is looking really old.

D70 looked very bad against a 350D! After 5 sample shoots (in 2005) with each camera I decided to go with Canon. Colors of the Nikon were greenish and unnatural. Sharpness of the Nikon was good but "texture fidelity" was bad: Nothing looked like the real objects surfaces/textures - a very subtle difference but very annoying. Both were equipped with its kit lenses: Nikons lens hat vast distortions and mustache style while the Canon had strong distortions but was much better in comparison.
I gone with the 20D and the EF 2.8 60 which showed a vast improvement in image quality just against the 350D and its kit lens.
In 2005 Nikon was 2 generations behind Canon. In 2010 I think both have been on a similar level. Now Nikon is ahead in sheer IQ at low ISOs but I think that will change in the next 2 or 3 years.

Now I have some pain to decide where to go but I am shure I just cannot exploit the potential of my 40D or 600D or EOS M ... so I will work with these "simple" but very reliable tools until I decide for a new body.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24