September 20, 2014, 06:04:11 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 ... 41
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: Today at 12:59:13 AM »
...some day, not terribly long into the future, we'll look at the kind of IQ that used to be quite normal a couple years ago like we look at 35mm film photos today.

I was considering getting rid of my 5D2, but you've got me thinking.

In not too long, that thing is going to have loads of retro appeal.
Right now it's is a nuisance, but in 2019 "Canon style banding noise" will be a trademark.
Fuji will make a filter effect just to try and capture that "classic Canon" look, but of course, no filter can produce random lines in lifted shadows like the real thing.
Man that sensor is all sorts of new cool now... or, in five years.

(on a serious note, I am looking forward to being able to photograph white things in sunlight)

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 06:20:28 PM »
I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly the point where I simply don't believe it.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]

Can I the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted?  If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology.  To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous.  Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements.  Real improvements, yes...but minor.

My understanding is that it mostly has to do with diminishing returns.
Right now there's a lot of people who just don't see it being worthwhile to increase pixel density on displays. I read the same sort of comment on sensor density on this forum almost every day.
Wait 10-20 years until a new generation has grown up with the maximum that the old generation would tolerate, and then you get a new maximum. Of course technology progresses too, but with all the arguments that get thrown around to keep things the way they are, it often sounds like it's not a technical issue.
As far as I can see that would only apply to camera sensor resolution though. I don't know of any drastic downsides to increasing DR, except maybe if it requires spending billions of dollars on infrastructure upgrades if you're Canon.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 04:21:19 PM »
I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly the point where I simply don't believe it.

I feel the same way a lot of the time.

In the home theater market, it seems like most of "the experts" have been harping on about black levels and colour density for years, seemingly getting little attention from manufacturers.
When people like me start saying that we need to triple the current pixel density to match the resolution of human vision, flying in the face of "common knowledge", people usually react negatively, but when the manufacturers start improving resolution instead of other things, that changes the situation.
"The experts" then move from promoting their preferences to putting down the ideas of other people, It's pretty sad.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.

Since I see mentions of video and watching distances...
I had a great chart showing suitable viewing distance for various resolutions and screen sizes, but it's embedded on a site that is highly linked to very X-rated content, so I think we should skip that URL. However, it showed the farthest distance at which an eye with perfect vision could resolve all the detail. In short, and as an example, it boils down to a 60 inch screen best being viewed from less than 10 feet if you want the eye to resolve all detail in a 1080p movie.

Let's toss in some Wikipedia that is less prone to being X-rated ->

I'd say that for a family of 4-5 to watch and enjoy every minute detail of a high-res video snippet they better huddle together really close. Thankfully the human brain is supposed to watch and enjoy the content, and it won't throw itself on the floor in a temper tantrum just because every single pixel isn't distinguishable.

Domino, I'm not commenting on you, but the Wikipedia article is a good example.

The first paragraph in the section titled "Human visual system limitation" states confidently, "one arcminute is seen as the threshold beyond which critical detail cannot be identified" and finishes off with "Sitting beyond these distances will result in a loss of detail"
But then you see an entire paragraph below that debating the first.
When I enter debate on this subject, the first response from an "expert" is normally denial that there even is a debate.

When I test my vision using a high frequency grid (it's easy enough to make things like that with a computer) the results I get agree with the "one acrminute" limitation. Which should be expected, It would be extremely hard to make a system correctly interpret an image made up of lines of the same size as the photocells in the system. Naturally all you end up with is noise.
When I test my vision for vernier resolution, using a low frequency grid with a bit of aliasing, the limits are approximately three times higher.
The "one arcminute" limit will still apply to fine, random texture, like the surface of concrete, but human vision is highly tuned to detect high contrast edges and motion, not wide, consistent texture. It's hard to say how much the "one arcminute" limit affects everyday vision.
I suspect part of the problem is that people underestimate the complexity of the human visual system. A while back Neuro recommended this book to me (, and it has been nothing but a delight to read (well illustrated).
It has a few chapters that go over the eye in detail.

Then you have to factor in diminishing returns, which seems to be the biggest issue with most people, regardless of whether they agree with you.

Head over to our 7D lab samples page for both the RAW and JPEG versions of our Still Life target

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: It's all gone a bit dry...
« on: September 18, 2014, 06:07:46 PM »
Beyond that, enticing people with a discount - i.e. bumping up your prices and then advertising XX% off can help draw people.  Everybody loves to think that they are getting a deal.

Please don't do that! That is misleading the customer and will only hurt you in the long run if the word gets out.

And in certain parts of the world, practices like this is illegal. For instance, in Norway you must be able to document that the "before price" was an actual going price prior to the campaign.
I guess it doesn't sound so good the way I put it...but offering a discount, or perceived discount can be helpful to generate more sales.  The ethical way to do it would be to create a brand new package at a special price.  Of course it's an individual decision and may not be for you (or legal according to janmaxim).

Of course, if you want to run a solid business you're still going to make a profit when you cut the price 50% (to blow through some stock).
Not every industry is capable of maintaining that sort of margin, but It always amazes me how many things in this world actually get a 1000% markup.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 03:52:20 PM »
This reminds me of discussions on the maximum resolution that people can see.
People get really confused about that for various reasons, but the crux of the argument always comes down to diminishing returns, or "price to performance".
1080p is great, but 4K is better, how much better? Depends on who you ask, how much it cost, how it affects the surrounding ecosystem, etc...
20MP is great, but 40MP is better. How much better? ...

It's times like this I really wish Roger was running a second business.

I would literally send him every lens I buy for inspection (which would probably just be one or two every year, but hey, maybe I'm not the only one).

EOS Bodies / Re: A New EOS Pro Body With 46mp Next Month? [CR1]
« on: September 18, 2014, 12:20:59 AM »
We know that Canon has had the ability to release large sensors with huge resolution for many years now, I can only hope they deem the market ready for one sooner rather than later.
I still suspect that their timing is connected to both the FPS that they can get with their current processors, and the price of memory.
The 1Dx at 36MP would only get 6FPS, maybe (hopefully) they just don't think that anything less is worthy of a 1D anymore. And if they're pushing 50-100MB files on people, 64GB memory cards had better be cheap.

PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 17, 2014, 02:13:52 PM »
Lens conversion 24-100mm F1.8-2.8

This might be not completely accurate. Shouldn't we multiply the aperture as we do with the focal length?

Correct me if I'm wrong please.

It might help if you read the thread.

If my calculations are correct it's a 35mm equivalent to f4.9 to f7.6.

So, that's 100mm f7.6 in normal exposure values.

Might be a semantic thing, but to be's f/7.6 in terms of DoF, but f/2.8 in terms of exposure (until you factor in ISO noise, anyway).

Very interesting.
So to be clear, a 1DX with a 100mm f2.8 lens at ISO 100 and the G7X at ISO 100, zoomed all the way in (maximum telephoto) and wide open, will produce images with the same brightness?

Yes.  Exposure (aperture + shutter speed) is determined by light per unit area hitting the sensor.   An f/2.8 lens with a given shutter speed (say 1/100 s) and a given ISO (say ISO 100) will give the same 'brightness' (within a reasonable variation due to different meters) whether the sensor is an iPhone or a Hasselblad medium format. 

However...the image noise is determined by the total light collected, so at a given aperture + shutter speed + ISO, the larger the sensor the lower the noise. 

For the same framing with a smaller sensor, you're either using a shorter FL or you're further away, resulting in a deeper DoF.  That's why a 'crop factor' applies to DoF as well as FL.  If you need that deeper DoF with the larger sensor, you simply stop down and you have it.  If you need to keep the shutter speed up, you raise ISO; the lower noise from the larger sensor means when you match DoF, you match noise and you're no worse off.

Basically, larger sensors give you the option of thinner DoF if you want it (and lower noise if you do), or the same DoF with no penalty.

For further reading:

EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII vs Samsung NX1
« on: September 17, 2014, 01:59:55 PM »
Ok, that's weak spec #1. Not shooting at full quality in burst mode is a big deal, and it certainly opens up a huge barrel of uncertainty.

Now I need to know what the maximum speed it will shoot full quality is.

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 17, 2014, 01:11:27 AM »
So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.

The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.

Don't you get it?   If any 7DII, anywhere, misses a single shot then the camera model sucks.  Even if it never misses a shot, Nikon has better DR, Samsung has higher fps, Sony has spiffy names for AF functions, and Pentax has colored LEDs on the outside, and so the 7DII still sucks.  Just like every Canon camera.  To be fair and impartial, Canon does have a couple of okay lenses.  But that doesn't make up for anything.

Try to think like a troll for once, will you??   ;)

I think you're right, I can't believe I was being so foolish.
What we really need is a camera that doesn't let you take a bad picture, something that automatically chooses the best focus and tells you what pictures are good.
And such a camera exists! It even shoots 10fps, and it selects the best image in a burst for you! Because it only offers you its favourite picture, by definition you can't take bad pictures with this camera, use this and you'll never see another crappy shot again!
You can be extra sure it's good because this camera is chosen by more people and has taken more photographs than any other in history.
I give you, the best camera ever (for trolls).

Maybe not today ..., but what about next year

maybe....  ;)

Did I say Samsung wins yet?
Of course we don't know anything about how all this will perform until it's in people's hands, and you usually get your best products in the second generation, but man alive this is a vicious onslaught of the photographic industry.
I actually like stuff from the Republic of Samsung so maybe I'm a little biased.

EOS-M / Re: More EF-M lenses in the future
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:07:26 PM »
The good news is that your EOS-M isn't going to be trash any time soon.

The bad news is that you're probably still only going to get one or two new lenses per year.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do you need a really high ISO?
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:54:16 AM »
One thing that hasn't changed is that size matters.  The low-light CMOS sensor you linked is FF...the 7DII/X won't be.

The affordable body for low-light shooting is called the 6D – you can buy one today at retailers everywhere!

Quite a good point:
Canon 6D vs Canon 70D: Noise Comparison (Low Light, High ISO) Video

The quite new 70D is an enormous step for CANON... is not that much for me.

Neuro, your comment is a strong point. We all know the well size DOES matter. However I started this topic with another intention. As I see my start wasn't that clear.

Need for ISO not as a general. Of course FF is better - MF the best. What I mean as next iteration of a model.
Let me rephrase: Will 7Dm2 finally jump over current CANON CMOS performance?

So far what we see recently is everything else but a good update over the under 50% QE. So far the statistics show that QE of about 55% a steady increase to be expected. Meanwhile some rivalry cameras can show off with QE of 67%.

I at least hope that the there will be some improvement over the older 7D  as there is between the 6D and 7S.

I know there are from different vendors, but I hope you get my point. ;-)

Neuro is dead on here...bigger sensors really trump for low light performance.

I also just had an interesting thought, watching that video. There is kind of a double negative for cropped sensors when it comes to gathering light. They have a smaller sensor...but to get the same framing as a larger sensor, you also have to be farther from your subject.

Light falloff is inverse squared distance. When you move back to frame a subject the same with an APS-C...your increasing the distance from sensor to subject. Not only is the sensor gathering less light in total than the's gathering even less light than that as light is falling off continuously over the greater distance to subject.

I'd never actually thought about this before...but it might be something to think about. If the things your interested in can be photographed close...then getting a FF camera like the 6D is going to be that much better.

As soon as you swap lenses to achieve the same framing it's not an issue. That only becomes a problem when you start to hit wide angles (the crop sensor's achilles' heel).

EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:29:59 AM »
So there's this thing called "single shot autofocus", it sets the focus and waits for you to fully press the shutter button. Sometimes the subject moves between setting the focus and you pushing the button.

The focus in these pictures says absolutely nothing about the performance of the system.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41