January 26, 2015, 09:37:43 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] 4 5 ... 30
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 31, 2014, 10:12:43 AM »
The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance.  I don't see this happening with 52 MP.  All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each.  That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size.  On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB  for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB).  The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG.  The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP.  So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

Going on what I've gleaned from many many debates on here and elsewhere, there won't be a big leap in high ISO, because we're already reaching the limit of what the current sensor technology can do (cue jrista and quantum efficiency). I think people have to accept that if you want to go a lot further with low light, you have to start looking at dedicated solutions - like the amazing video sensor Canon showed off a while back, or a bigger sensor, like the 645z. Standard DSLRs can't make leaps in every area forever (until and unless someone invents a new type of sensor).

+1

I have an idea how to increase sensitivity by a factor of three: put an optical grating in front of each pixel and use 10 or 20 photodiodes per pixel to make a rough spectral scan. No loss in a color filter array. Different angles of incidence (of different optics) can be corrected by software ("which photodiode corresponds to which wavelength). No longer 3 color channels but the chance to track colors more detailed.

The only problem: I have no machine at home to produce that sensor and I am shure no one has. But perhaps just a matter of time because a 52 MPixel DPAF sensor has 100 Mio photodiodes to read and this seems possible!

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 31, 2014, 10:06:55 AM »
The 5D4 should also include a bump in FPS and buffer performance.  I don't see this happening with 52 MP.  All I see with 52 MP is HUGE RAW files, maybe 90-100 MB each.  That's a lot for in-camera crunching and recording to cards.

I think you're grossly overestimating the size.  On a 6D, the average image size ranges from about 21–25 MB  for 20.2 MP (with occasional spikes up to 30 MB).  The reason for the variation is the embedded JPEG.  The RAW data takes about 1 MB per MP.  So I'd expect a 52 MP camera's files to be 52-57 MB apiece, assuming they do nothing whatsoever to improve their compression ratios, and assuming they keep the embedded JPEG images at the current resolution/quality rather than scaling them up for no apparent reason.

He does - a lot.

This is what you get when stretching the Nikon 810 to the max with 14 bit lossless:

14 bit lossless file size: 42 MB
RAW file converted in DNG 36MB

So 52 - 57 MB a piece sounds right to me.

Also, while many here complain about the "monster" file sizes a 50MB camera would produce I have lots of Photoshop files >100MB and quite a few >250MB.

Personally, I'd be happy with a 36-40 MB 5DIV if it came with significantly better dynamic range and high iso (and not another incremental crawl such as what we got with 5DIII).

Hopefully you are right. I see a lot of 30+ MByte files from my 600D (good lens, tripod etc) from very detailed objects. I would expect roughly 80 MByte files from a 52 MPix camera - "worst case" (if detailed images are such a case ...).

A sampling depth of 14 bit must result in a max file size of about 100 MByte and a higher dynamic range will more often converge to the max file size ...

On the other hand: What are 100 MByte today? 10 000 images on a 50 EUR/$ HD means 0.5 ct per stored image or 1 ct per stored mirrored (=backup) image. Compared to the TCO of just one Kodachrome image of roughly 50 ct (inflation corrected) and under the assumption that not each image is perfect you would see some EUR/$ per stored image ...

Or another calculation: A 5D mark ii costs 300000 ct and the shutter will last 200000 exposures - just releasing the shutter means 1.5 ct of costs (without any operating costs eg. new batteries, lenses, travel fees, etc.). Or 7.5 ct. per second (!) for continups shutter mode ...

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
« on: December 31, 2014, 06:12:53 AM »
If they implement a mRAW mode with ~24MPix and a sRAW mode with 13MPix - why not? At 13 MPix we have 4 subpixels per image pixel - good for excellent color reproduction.

But some of you are right: If it's a sensor with DPAF managing 104 Million pixels would need a quad DIGIC array to be fast and that might reduce the battery life dramatically. So this camera will be a slow cam. And no 5D mark iv ...

For me a very precise and accurate AF with wide coverage + the above mentioned modes with better noise characteristics/smaller files + very low shutter lag + 2 fps would make a good "high quality slow cam".
A faster crop mode with 5fps in 7D ii quality might keep file sizes compact and delivers reasonable speed.

34
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by DigitalRev
« on: December 04, 2014, 01:19:57 PM »
I guess it's just a better camera for using rather than talking out.

Well said - that is the reason I am really excited about this camera (and less about each detail in each review).

35
Software & Accessories / Re: Tripods - CF or Aluminum...?
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:30:56 AM »
I had the same decision and decided for carbon fibre because
I like to walk around a lot to find a good place/scenery so weight
is a concern. Another reason was the good damping of vibrations,
essential for long exposures with tele photo lenses.

[EDIT:
IMO (just guessing) a alumium tripod with the same vibration damping
is 2x the mass of a carbon fiber tripod - good CF materials are vastly
superior in this discipline. Add a good ball head (500 grams) we go with a
1500+500 gr CF tripod (2000 gr) versus
3000+500 gr Al tripod (3500 gr.)
which is essential after 20 km of trekking!
]

I replaced my Manfrotto 190B (Al) with a Sirui 3204 (CF compound):
The Sirui 3204 is lighter than a (25 year old) Manfrotto 190B but gives
much more native height and is a vibration sucker compared to
the old Manfrotto. Using the Manfrotto (aluminum) tripod in direct sunlight
was of no concern. With the Sirui I think about a "radiation protection" made
of white clothing for the legs ...

Another concern is: How fast can you set up the tripod - the right choice of
the leg locks is essential for this! I like the approch with a lock ring around
each leg section: stable and fast!


CarbonFibre:                                       Aluminum

moderate weight                                 higher weight

very good vibration damping               moderate vibration damping

less influence of weight distribution    load deforms structure/legs
of mounted camera-lens-combo

max 100°C over short periods.           virtually no temperature limit within
Sounds exotic, isn't in the                   standard conditions
summer sun

Cannot be repaired if leg cracks          Easier to repair, some bumps don't influence useability

Expensive                                            moderate cost

36
Reviews / Re: www.photozone.de reviewed EF-S 24/2.8 STM
« on: November 30, 2014, 10:12:58 AM »
I am always glad if companies give us OPTIONS to choose from.

For ME: The EF 40mm lens is the holy gral of pancakes because I like the 64mm equivalent on my APS-C cameras. Just for the EOS M it will make a compact lens. If I need 24mm the old and trusty 2.8/24mm will be fine.

For ME: The EF-M 22mm 2.0 is the most interesting choice because it makes a COMPACT EOS M camera but ... as said before: A COMPACT EF-M with 2.0 55mm (lens elements in tele configuration) would be much more attractive for ME, especially if combined with IS.

An EF 24mm pancake is not possible for FF SLRs because of the - mentioned by others - necessity to do some tricks with a negative front element far from the positive groups to keep the mirror area free of stuff ...

Just my 2ct - Michael

37
Reviews / Re: Lens cap review: (Exploding) Hama 77mm lens caps
« on: November 30, 2014, 10:06:51 AM »
(1) I think we need much more statistics: Buy more HAMA lenscaps and drop your lenses more often ... just kidding.

(2) If something desintegrates it eats up energy which is no longer available to damage e.g. the lens. A polycarbonate camera shell destroys much more energy while getting cracks than a metall hull beeing slightly deformed. The deceleration path is longer with disintegrating things so the maximum forces during the impact are lowered saving the (delicate) rest.

(3) You are all right, modern economics tries to save in material quality, material thickness, design optimization and dislocates different stages of the production process ... that usually keeps prices and ... quality down.

Best - Michael

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Sensor Technology
« on: November 29, 2014, 02:14:44 PM »
Does anyone see hope in this as a realistic approach?
Realistic : cost effective  + an actual improvement + ..

Seems to me like a very good idea: Light sensitive pixels in the focus of the micro lenses and less sensitive pixels with SAME FULL WELL CAPACITY between the microlens focus regions. So it is a modified dual pixel design ...: If the more sensitive pixel is saturated the less sensitive pixel is still measuring valuable data. More than nice to have and something which can give us 15-20 stops of dynamic range. But perhaps not at 10 fps with 50 MPix ...

Thanks Woody for the english/US patent - just scanned it and was much better than the japanes->german translation by go og le tra ns lations.

39
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by Fro
« on: November 25, 2014, 03:53:38 PM »
Nice video review...
However, I think his slight out of focus issue could be fixed with AFMA.
There are reasons why AFMA exists!

It's not necessarily a focus issue: On the examples in the video I had problems to see SOMETHING sharp so I wouldn't have the chance to decide between front- and backfocus.

Perhaps it's some hidden noise reduction setting in the JPEG engine: I had the same trouble with my 40D and 2.0 100mm. Some shots where unbelievable sharp, most of them were mushy ... until I found a setting for noise reduction in the RAW files: usually it was activated, sometimes the camera decided not to activate that switch. After deactivating the noise reduction all photos appeared much sharper (except some technically minor images).

So let's wait for well developped RAWs ...

EDIT: By the way: A very interesting review because Jared Polin pointed out the characteristics of the 7D ii as A TOOL for TAKING PHOTOS ...

40
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 09:09:03 AM »
I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?

I think Canon is still very conservative - but that's not bad at all: It means too that Canon is "stable". A 20sth. year old EF 2.8/24 (non-USM, non-IS) works well on a EOS-M which is a bit younger.
Cameras like 20D or 40D are REAL TOOLS with good hardware control layout, nearly flawless ergonomics.

The 7D mark ii is just a minor upgrade in many terms for a 5 year old camera but ... what I see from reviews and samples it has a very advanced AF system and at least the noise characteristics of the sensor is much improved. And changing from 40D to 7D mk ii might be as easy to change from eating tofu with chopsticks to eating chicken with chopsticks.

I am shure Canon will surprise us in the next months with a high megapixel FF body. The sensor tech of the 7D mk ii on a FF chip will give a 50 MPix camera for good to medium light conditions. Postprocessing will allow to get 10 or 20 MPix files with good high ISO results.

One observation - which is NOT representative - besides criticism on canonrumors: A lot of shops in my home town (a smaller town in germany) exhibit only Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic cameras. Some nikon stuff but Canon stuff only in homeopathic doses. The 7d mk ii istn't available at big electronic markets nor amazon germany.

Best - Michael

41
Lenses / Re: In praise of the 40mm f/2.8 STM
« on: November 22, 2014, 05:14:34 AM »
Mr_Canuck: Well choosen title ... "In praise ..."

I like the shorty forty on my EOS M - no longer a pancake but a pan cake stack. But for me the resulting 65mm equiv are a very attractive "wide angle" compared to the other lenses I use on a regular base: 160mm macro, 112-320mm, 640mm! And consumes only one lens compartment with its intelligent rear cap - the EOS M.

Another advantage of this lens is the contralight photo quality (see photo below) which gives great contrast and color under these conditions. For the shot below I came back to the same crop field (first session was spoiled by sRAW setting on 40D = 3 MPix) to get exactly that contralight.

EDIT: New reg to image:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=295.0;attach=124928;image

43
Post Processing / Re: POLL: What picture styles do you use?
« on: November 16, 2014, 03:09:11 PM »
100% RAW shooting. I like Neutral (for on site checks via camera screen) because I have to work for better/clearer/punchier colors ... waiting for the right light or modify the existing light with silk clothes, white paper etc. (The latter not for landscapes ...).

In movie mode it might be the best option to preserve editing latitude - with 600D there is no RAW mode for video AFAIK and I wouldn't like their larger size too.

44
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7DII lightmeter on top LCD.
« on: November 16, 2014, 09:24:49 AM »
Thanks for the replies!

Davebo, Thanks for your steps to the ECS! But unfortunately it's not the light meter that shows me if my shots get under or over exposed with the manual speed, aperture and ISO I'm using. I'm looking for the option to get the meter I see on the right side in the viewfinder on the top screen LCD(as with previous EOS models in M mode). I don't use exposure compensation that often, I mostly do my work with manual shutter speeds, apertures and ISO speeds.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain it correctly.

I think you explained correctly - IMO only a few use the light meter on the LCD screen. To avoid wrong readings by users maybe Canon has reserved the "scale" in the top LCD for exposure compensation display. The viewfinder displays both scales (AFAIK - I haven't got that camera now).

What a pity, I use it too sometimes if I work with a tripod - it isn't essential but a unnecessary omitting of a helpful feature ...

45
Lenses / Re: 70-200 f/2.8 with T3i or 70-200 f/4 with 7d II
« on: November 16, 2014, 03:17:05 AM »
I currently own a T3i and want to photograph my son at his wrestling meets.  I know the f/2.8 will work with the T3i.  However, would the f/4 allow me to still upgrade to the 7dII?  Will the improved focusing and iso quality allow the f/4 to function well inside of a gym?  I know that the f/2.8 will create a nicer background but I am willing to make some compromise with this.  Thanks.

Not the easiest. decision to make!

IMO a fast camera always helps for moving subjects. Fast means fast response esp. the shutter release. I would prefer the 7 D ii with an Image stabilized f/4 tele zoom -- or alternatively the f/2 100mm lens.

Another Point: The anti flicker feature might help to get more light on the sensor for indoor sports ...

The lighter lens might be much more comfortable to handle if you like to have your camera in your right hand to be ready to shoot.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 30