August 20, 2014, 08:55:55 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 - Rocky

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 40
451
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 11:35:59 PM »
[It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.
We are talking about "same technology" here. That will imply the same semiconductor processing for the sensors.  Who with the right mine will put a smaller pixel size with the same sensor with the same MP count even with newer technoloy. Canon is doing the absolute opposite. It make the pixel as big as posible (for better noise performanance), use gapless microlens, at least on the 7D officially, may even be with the Rebels, for better light gethering and hence better noise performance. I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.

You can't be serious. Canon is making the pixels as large as possible? That'll surprise a lot of people. Please compute the pixel sizes of the Nikon D700, Canon 5DMk2, Nikon D300S and Canon 7D. The percentage of the pixel which actively gathers light, the design of the microlenses, sensor fabrication methods, the number of sensor readout channels, the post processing after the analog signals leave the sensor and the quality of the A-to-D converter all could be classified as "technology". Are you and Hayden1971 deliberately trying to confuse matters and create non sequiturs. REMOVED.  Lets be CIVIL
Yes  I am serious. I work in the semiconductor industry on the techical area. I know what technology means. We are talking about pixel size in the sensors only. Nothing has been memtioned about anything outside the sensor. Please  read the the technical papers. 7d has the highest pixel density density. It will have the smallest pixel pitch,. However, Canon is trying to make the indvidual pixel as large as possible and use Gapless microlens to artifficial to increase the pixel size. FYI, number of channel for the sensor read out is not technology, it is "implementation".
You just keep on throwing in irrelevent  points to confuse the issue. Until you can show me an example of camera maker actually decrease the pixel size for a given sensor with the same pixel count, you are just arguing for the sake of argueing. Look, who is not civilized.

452
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 08:59:55 PM »
[It's entirely possible for two sensors, designed and built years apart, to have the same pixel pitch/size but use different "technologies". Moreover, it is possible for the newer sensor to have smaller pixels but the same number of them as the older and, because of technology improvements, provide a better image quality.
We are talking about "same technology" here. That will imply the same semiconductor processing for the sensors.  Who with the right mine will put a smaller pixel size with the same sensor with the same MP count even with newer technoloy. Canon is doing the absolute opposite. It make the pixel as big as posible (for better noise performanance), use gapless microlens, at least on the 7D officially, may even be with the Rebels, for better light gethering and hence better noise performance. I have nor heard of any body decrease the pixel size in the same sensor with the same pixel count. May be you can quote me an example.

453
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 28, 2011, 04:37:17 PM »
If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?
"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density.  The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density.  besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution  and hence better opicture quality.

454
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: June 28, 2011, 02:36:53 PM »
The 30D is a 12 bit camera so the later 14 bit processed images are going to produce better dynamic range.  I have a thing that too many people concentrate on the sensors and not anything like enough on the image processor which is the real keystone of a digital camera.  Manufacturers didn't name their sensors (well OK some did) but all of them name their image processors.  Good image processing affects so many camera functions, and yet hardly anyone ever seems interested.  Sad really.

BTW the Cokin - Lee etc graduated filter system were made in the days of film exactly for this problem, and they're still useable with digital, you should consider using them.  Then there's HDR which you could never do with film this way you can manage ridiculous dynamic ranges.

Our eyes can see a huge dynamic range, and they acheive this by scanning a scene and adjusting the pupils, persistence of vision means we see the whole scene, and don't even realise what our eyes have done.  A camera cannot do this, but one interesting solution is adaptive Iso where the sensor is read using different Iso settings.
If the sensor is saturated with high light or noise, the processor cannot do anything about it. On paper, a 12 bit processor will give us at least 12 stops of  dynamic range, a 14 bit processor will give us at least 14 stops of dynamic range. None of us can get that kind of dynamic range out of our DSLR. This is a good proof of the sensor dynamic range is the limitation, not the processor.
Graduated filter is an excellent idea to make the picture look better under certain condition by compressing the dynamic range of the scenery to a point that the sensor can handle it easier.
As for human eyes, the dynamic range is much higher than the sensor. couple with our brain's "cheating power" (We still see a white shirt under the ordinary light bulb while the digital camera sees as yellowish even with automatic  white ballance. The camera will see it really yellow if the white balance is set to day light)  We will have dynamic range that no camera plus software correction can match.
There are posts talking about diffraction limitation. We should also look at it from a different angle. The diffraction limit is cause by the lens, not the sensor. At lower resolution sensor, we just never  see it.  With high resolution sensor, the diffraction limitation just reduce the high resolution sensor to a lower resolution sensor. Example: 18 Mp  diffraction limit is f 6.3 while 10 mp diffraction limit is f 10.6 (??) . If  you set the lens at f11 with a 18 mp sensor, you just reduce the actuall resolution of the 18 Mp to be  10 Mp, assuming a good lens is used.

455
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon Withdraw from the Megapixel War?
« on: June 27, 2011, 06:32:20 PM »
Msot of  the posts here seems to be quite polarized. Either they want the mega Pixel War keeps going on to 120MP or they want It to stop. Or they try to draw the line for High Mp for hobbist and lower pixel count for Pros. The following is my own personal opinion and not the intention for another battle front. For hoobist, not that many people can affort to have a few $2000 lens. So using a 18 MP sensor will be  a waste of computer power without any real gain in reolution. Pros have the advantage  of deeper bugget (tax write off). So Canon should use their sensor technology ( low noise sensor, gapless micro lens etc) to produce a lower Pixel count sensor( 12 to14 Mp ??) to give hobbist a camera that have better dynamic range and does not strain the resolution of a reasonable price lens. How many hobbist need bigget than 14 X 12  enlargement???So Canon, are  you listening ????

456
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Large Sensor PowerShot? [CR1]
« on: June 27, 2011, 05:42:03 PM »
Well it's more than just the sensor, the camera has to work, and based on the aweful G12 I've been messing around with I doubt they're on the right path.

The G12 is such an absolute piece of junk that I won't buy anything expect the absolute top of the range Canon again. I haven't owned such a useless camera since my very first Fed Zorki lll back in the mid 70's. How Canon created such a piece of junk out out what was an almost acceptable platform amazes me. My weekend with at the Montreal F1 GP was so tragic I just started laughing at all the pictures it missed, 19 out of 20, maybe 39 out of 40. No matter what I did to override its silly nanny habits it would still dwell and pause, missing every single bit of action, it was so stunningly useless that I'm actually amazed they sell any of them at all!

So, even if they put a bigger better chip in a pocketable camera, there is no guarantee that it'll be any use at all based on the disaster that is the G12!
Sorry to hear that. I hate to tell you that the G12 or any point and shoot is not suitable for action or sport photography. To shoot Formular One Grand Prix, You definitely need a Good DSLR with fast auto focus.

457
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Large Sensor PowerShot? [CR1]
« on: June 27, 2011, 02:08:55 PM »
Now, if we're talking about the 5D2 FF sensor inside a Canon P or 7 body with Leica M-mount...  ;D

That will be my dream camera. I have a few Lieca lenses waiting for it. The M9 is too expensive for me due to shift of priority.

458
Lenses / Re: Why did Canon make EF-S lenses
« on: June 11, 2011, 11:22:19 AM »
The main reason to make EF-S lens is to take the advantage of the smaller mirror in the APS-C sensor body(The rear lens element can get into the camera body deeper) and  smaller image circle. These will make the design of wide angle lnes (or zoom) easier. As for pricing, that is another story.  Canon can sacrifice quality to make it cheap (as in the kit lenses)or make it good and expensive (17-55 f2.8). I personally think taht Cnnon is smart to make the EF-S lens, especially the 10-22 and the 17-55 f2.8.

459
EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor
« on: June 11, 2011, 11:11:09 AM »
Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad

There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.

Skip the mirror and make an electronic one, That will also elimiinate problem wioth the mirrorshake
There is only ONE TS-E lens will give you 36 X36 mm coverage. Do you think that Canon will make a camera that is based on ONE lens only and with the slow AF and view finder of a point and shoot. Will you buy this camera.? The standard coverage of FE lens is 30.4 MM square.

460
EOS Bodies / Re: 36x36 mm cmos sensor
« on: June 11, 2011, 12:33:43 AM »
Dont know why people are saying that you cant have a 36x36 sensor. Now it is 36x24 , and a lens is round.. so i dont see the problem here.
I want a square one, and i want it bad

There will not be enough room for the movement of the reflex mirror. The existing EF lens will just clear the movement of the mirror for a 24mm high sensor. now you are asking another 12mm extra.

461
EOS Bodies / Re: Different camera numbers internationally - why?
« on: June 11, 2011, 12:27:39 AM »
The naming system used in U.S. is different from the rest of the world is due to the Importer of Canon in U.S. wants to identify their own imported product when it dealss with the warranty. Canon U.S.A. will only honor the warranty of the product that is imported by them ONLY. If you buy a camera outside of U.S. and needs warranty work, you need to pay for the total repair cost. By looking at the product number, Canon U.S.A. known whether it is their imported product or not.

462
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: June 07, 2011, 01:25:35 PM »
Given that the 1.8 & 1.4 are from the pre-digital 90's, how about making the 1.4 into the base EF lens, adding the IS and improving the overall quality, selling that at double the price, but then making the 1.8 into a pure EF-S lens, knock it down to 31mm to suit the 90% of Canon bodies users (1.6x crop), add IS, add wider focus ring, add FTM and sell it for about 2-2.5x the current price.  Bingo !  The beginnings of a EF-S range of primes.
Excellent idea. Hope that Canon is listening.

463
Lenses / Re: Lens cap solution?
« on: June 07, 2011, 01:19:40 PM »

I seem to be the only person on the planet who like the Canon-caps much better than the other pinch-in-the-middel versions. Those often popped out of my grip and bounced off the front element. but the Canon caps I simply take on and off edge first, much easier to grip the whole cap side by side, than a small awkard grip in the middle....

I totally agree with you. When it bounce of the front element, it may scratch the lens. Also depends on the lens design, the center grip cap may have a chance to scratch the front element of the lens, especially the wide angle lenses( The mechanism of the center grip can lamost be flush with the bottom of the cap)

464
Lenses / Re: Lens cap solution?
« on: June 07, 2011, 01:11:51 PM »
Try this. Not in production yet, but seems like a good solution. Thought of this thread the moment I saw it.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/293194835/camera-lens-cap-holder

I can foresee three potential problem with this product
1. You need multiple cap holder to be attached to the camera strap if you are using multiple lenses with differeent cap size.
2. With multple holder attached to the strap, the camera strap may be akward to be used.
3. With the lens cap dangling on the strap, It will have more chance to come loose without the photographer even knowing it.

465
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 24, 2011, 01:34:54 AM »
I doubt it.  The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K).  The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.

Why did you tell me about this lens...you just cost me an extra $3000.  Thanks.  :)

I did not know the f/1.0 existed, but for the night time pictures I take, it might be the right lens.

Good job no one mentioned the f/.95 then!
f/ 0.95 is for Canon body with Leica screw mount

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 40