December 21, 2014, 02:04:48 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 - 9VIII

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 05:32:45 PM »
i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.

Trust me, I'd love to have the FF prices as low as they can be. But do you honestly think that any manufacturer never tried to undercut the price to gain more market share? FF prices are falling over time and one day, they'll be as cheap as current entry bodies (fool's hope of mine), but I guess you are just upset about the pricing (as many others are). If there was a cartel deal between all FF manufacturers then either one of them would try to undercut the others to grab its market share or somebody would certailny whistleblew it a long time ago.

i have heard the argument about a ff camera costing more due to the sensor, mirror and other parts being bigger but that just doesn't seem rational when the 6d is as cheap as it is. i reckon ff sensors and parts cost a bit more but not enough to double the price. i would guess 20% more. take the 7dii 5diii comparison. they are the same size and the build is as good or better on the 7dii, it has gps and the dpaf sensor. it may well cost more to make a 7dii. i know about economy of scale but i can't see how the 5diii should cost twice as much.

Actually costs go up pretty dramatically as sensor size increases.
Every silicone platter is going to have defects on it, usually caused by dust in the air, and it costs the same to process the platter regardless of what you make out of it.
Just as an example, if every platter has an average of ten defects and you make 100 sensors out of it, you're probably going to lose 10% of your product. If you make ten sensors out of it you have the chance of getting nothing at all.
Basically that's the equation you face with sensors larger than Full Frame right now.
I remember reading that back when Canon was starting FF production they had to move their cleanliness standards to a whole new level.

ok, so how much does the sensor on the 6d cost compared to the one in the 7dii?

A little bit of Google returns a nice article on the subject.

http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/the-economics-of-digital-photo-sensors/

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 05:06:26 PM »
i am not a socialist and i believe in free enterprise but i don't agree with price gouging. i think the price of ff cameras has been artificially inflated for a long time. they are free to charge whatever they want as long as they are not involved in collusion and price fixing. afaik that would be illegal in the u.s.

Trust me, I'd love to have the FF prices as low as they can be. But do you honestly think that any manufacturer never tried to undercut the price to gain more market share? FF prices are falling over time and one day, they'll be as cheap as current entry bodies (fool's hope of mine), but I guess you are just upset about the pricing (as many others are). If there was a cartel deal between all FF manufacturers then either one of them would try to undercut the others to grab its market share or somebody would certailny whistleblew it a long time ago.

i have heard the argument about a ff camera costing more due to the sensor, mirror and other parts being bigger but that just doesn't seem rational when the 6d is as cheap as it is. i reckon ff sensors and parts cost a bit more but not enough to double the price. i would guess 20% more. take the 7dii 5diii comparison. they are the same size and the build is as good or better on the 7dii, it has gps and the dpaf sensor. it may well cost more to make a 7dii. i know about economy of scale but i can't see how the 5diii should cost twice as much.

Actually costs go up pretty dramatically as sensor size increases.
Every silicon platter is going to have defects on it, usually caused by dust in the air, and it costs the same to process the platter regardless of what you make out of it.
Just as an example, if every platter has an average of ten defects and you make 100 sensors out of it, you're probably going to lose 10% of your product. If you make ten sensors out of it you have the chance of getting nothing at all.
Basically that's the equation you face with sensors larger than Full Frame right now.
I remember reading that back when Canon was starting FF production they had to move their cleanliness standards to a whole new level.

3
Lenses / Re: 400mm DO II
« on: December 20, 2014, 04:51:31 PM »
The 400mm range is really crowded in Canon's line.

Don't say that!

We still need a 400f5.6IS.
The 400f5.6 is 21 years old now, and the 100-400MkI was 16 years old. They can at least put out a new consumer grade 400mm lens every five years or so (instead of 16 to "maybe never").

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 20, 2014, 01:08:24 AM »
I got up to the ISO test and found a discrepancy.

Quote
At ISO 6400, things start to suck – especially when compared to a 70D,

Ok, here's the 70D test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s5/v133/p1997423089.jpg

and here's the 7DII test

http://photos.ronmartblog.com/img/s6/v144/p355442490.jpg

Image noise is obviously a massive improvement on the 7DII, when it seems like the lack of ISO improvement was the crux of his review.
AKA, this is just a carelessly written blog post intended to flame the 7DII.

Chalk him up as a Tony Northrup wanna-be.

5
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 20, 2014, 12:43:41 AM »
Check out photozone.de results! The new 100-400 II is killer! It actually handily beats the 70-300L and 70-200 2.8 IS II at 200mm!! And it's crazy good at 300mm too. And the 400mm is fine and big jump from the old version and, other than for edges, old slow prime!

For whatever reason, I find that photozone.de results have most often matched what I've personally seen.

As usual, PZ gets the numbers all wrong.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Here's an interesting one.  This is the 70-200/2.8L IS II + 2x TC III versus the new 100-400L IS II + 1.4x TC III both 1/3 of a stop down.  The 70-200+2x is sharper in the middle but softer on the edges.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=3&LensComp=972&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

It's funny, after looking at the Photozone and TDP tests, the 400f5.6 is still very competitive in terms of overall sharpness, especially considering price.
That said, the 100-400MKII is now almost perfected in every other way, It really seems like they were trying hard to think of ways to make this lens better without encroaching on Big White territory.
I guess that leaves plenty for them to improve upon when they release the 100-400 MkIII in 2030.

6
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:53:27 PM »
I really want to see the in-field performance of the 400 f/4 DO II under different lighting conditions. If Canon has solved the DO weakness of poor contrast and flaring, and knows how to make super-sharp DO lenses, then we should expect to see a 500 or 600 f/4 DO someday - maybe 5.5 to 6 pounds, rather than the 7.0 and 8.5 pounds the version II conventional 500 and 600 f/4 weigh. Yeah, I know - unicorns.

I'm sure its possible, it depends on marketing.  Are there enough buyers in the market to go for a 500mm, a 600mm or a 800mm DO?  A lot of people recently invested a big chunk of money in the new 500mm and 600mm lenses, and are not likely to change to a DO version, so maybe the 800mm is the next DO lens??

I'm surprised you're so sceptical about DO with how much people raved about the weight difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 Big Whites.

My bet is all Mk3 Supertelephoto lenses will be DO, there really isn't much else they can improve otherwise.

7
Lenses / Re: 400mm DO II
« on: December 19, 2014, 02:53:32 PM »
I'm more curious about the possibility of a 600mm DO, and if the technology becomes standard I have to wonder if they'll stop using the green ring?

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Using full frame lens on crop body cameras ?
« on: December 13, 2014, 11:05:05 PM »
If you're going for sports or even medium paced action I wouldn't hesitate to get the 70-200ISII and 7DII, even if sharpness isn't optimal you aren't going to get blazing fast AF on an EF-S lens.
So that's a resounding NO as far as whether or not crop specific lenses are better than full frame lenses in that application.

If you're more into landscapes and slower paced shots I would put the money into a full frame body rather than a nice lens, a used 5D2 and the Pancake is an amazing combo (actually with prices on the 6D lately that's probably your best bet).
The 7D2 is going to be a favourite in many applications for a long time to come though, it can't hurt to have a machine gun even if you only need a pistol.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 09, 2014, 09:57:45 PM »
Looks like a great lens.

This should be amazing compared to the small aperture and manual focus mirror lenses out there.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: December 07, 2014, 06:54:31 PM »
Why get a 2560x1080 monitor when you can get 2650x1440?

I really don't get the "ultrawide" fad.

In a year or so these will be coming out.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8496/dell-previews-27inch-5k-ultrasharp-monitor-5120x2880

How does having the equivalent of sixteen 720p monitors sound?

For now I would just pick something from here.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617%20600012686%20600012694&IsNodeId=1&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=90

11
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6534640423/behind-the-shot-dalis-dream
http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS520x0~articles/6534640423/l_Kolmanskop_4_6-3-2014_st9.jpeg

Umm, the most critical thing to making that photo happen is Photoshop, any camera could have been used.

Lee Jay gives a much better example of why DR is a good thing, except that 10 stops was still more than enough.

I guess the lesson today is that post processing trumps all.

12
Street & City / Re: Why is poverty so photogenic?
« on: December 02, 2014, 08:35:56 PM »
I find rich countries, especially in North America, like Canada for example, the worse places to take people photos.


When your battery isn't frozen.

I like the fact that people can't just wander around aimlessly for half the year.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D MKII -- Love the low noise!
« on: November 30, 2014, 05:52:25 PM »
At the size we see on the forum you probably could have shot at ISO 6400 with minimal loss of IQ (that might be an exaggeration but the point is, everything looks bad when you're a pixel peeper :P )

However, I must say I really like the composition of that picture. Very nice.

14
I'm finding that lighting is the next big step.
I've always struggled with light in my macro and product shots, but I didn't realize how much it was controlling me before I bought a light box and discovered that you can do a lot more stuff with the proper equipment.
After doing a bit more reading it almost sounds like your lighting equipment should be a higher priority than your camera body.

Though if I'm not at a desk shooting little things I usually prefer to just shoot what's there rather than trying to manipulate everything.
Which is probably just as much an indication of my photographic philosophy as anything, that it's mostly about documentation and not so much artistic expression, discussion of which just makes my eyes glaze over.

15
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 01:19:22 PM »
Canon now has a few chinks in their armour vs. totally dominating the industry. If you're used to having the best of everything all the time then that's a big change.

I just want some higher resolution bodies.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46