October 25, 2014, 03:09:33 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 - sanj

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 104
16
Lenses / Selling 200-400
« on: October 04, 2014, 05:37:08 AM »
Not very happy with this decision as the lens is quite good. But just for use once a year, am not sure if I should hold on to it.
Will buy the Sigma 150-600 sports. But will it be available before my next trip in Feb is the question. Do you think I should wait till the trip is over before selling? What if I sell and the Sigma does not deliver?

Btw the 200-400 is good but I got lots of over exposed shots when I engaged the 1.4x. Perhaps operator error but but not sure...

17
Oh no. Who wants a 36 mp camera? 24 mp are ENOUGH. Nikon made a huge blunder by coming out with a 36mp camera two years ago.  ;D

18
What gets boring about this discussion is that those who attack the 'high DR advocates' are invariably coming from one of the following flawed perspectives:

1.   It does not matter to me, so it should not matter to you. Sorry, around whom does the universe spin?
2.  You do not understand how to expose correctly. Condescending and ignorant view point.
3.   If Canon pros can make great photos, then you must think you are better than them. This ignores entirely the plethora of factors that lead to some people shooting Canon versus other brands. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the facts being discussed here. What's more it is about as logical as saying 'Mr X, the Formula 1 racer uses a BMW 535D as his daily driver so I cannot see why its not good enough for YOU.... without recognising that you might live on a remote farm in Scotland, accessed via a track passable only to 4x4s!
4.   When buying a camera, DR is only one consideration. You should look at the whole camera! Yes, but it may be that amazing AF and live view matters not to a given person, whereas high DR is actually more important for specific applications. Some people don't want to 'work around' the issue when they don't have to, or own multiple systems just to cover those high SBR moments that a Canon will struggle with... and carry both 'just in case'.
5.   Show me the paper or monitor that has 14 stops of range - there are none that are close so this 'data' is wasted! Sorry, but this shows a total lack of technical understanding of the issue. You need to learn about the relationships between subject brightness ranges, capture and output. This is basic stuff and its sad to hear how many people get their teeth stuck in while showing their ignorance on this one.
6.   A five stop push is unrealistic and therefore shows us nothing about real life application! Sure, 5 stops is extreme, but you try even 2 stops when those shadows are on the floor and the Canon still falls apart, especially if you want to make large prints. And yes, you can encounter these scenarios every single outing if you happen to shoot the sort of subject matter that will require you to expose to include hot highlights and then lift deep shadow. Sony sensors are dramatically better here and its visible in an 8x10, never mind a 30"
7.   Shadows are supposed to be shadows you fools! They aren't supposed to be lifted that much. Once again, you don't understand the basics of exposure and tonal placement in relation to the exposure latitude of the materials you are working with. Put in crude and simple terms, the photographer decides what is shadows and if the exposure means they fall darker than desired, its better if the photographer has recourse. There was the same issue in the darkroom, when you did your best with exposure and development, but due to various factors were left with heavy dodging in the darkroom....
8. All cameras are compromises. You are getting all upset because Canon is not perfect, but neither is Nikon. Sure, this is true, but as everyone's needs differ and as the compromises differ from one manufacturer to the other, this is a non-point. We can still prefer one compromise over the other. Besides, now that Nikon has sorted LOTS of issues out with the D810 and D750, if Canon does not nail the DR and banding issue, its going to be difficult to show a strong reason to be selected. Besides, none of this diminishes the frustration that far smaller companies with much lower budgets produce much cheaper cameras with much smaller sensors with much more dynamic range! Canon has ZERO high DR options. None at ANY price.

There are a lot of people commenting here like they are real pros, who are clueless on the issues about which they are commenting. Then there are those who just think that anyone whose needs differ from their own are delusional. Either way, its really boring hearing the same tired old counter-arguments from people you'd think are having their identities attacked.

....So I would be interested to know if there is anyone out there who will disagree with the following statement. If not, there is not a lot more to say:

"Sony sensors do have measurably higher DR than existing Canon sensors. They have measurably and visibly lower read noise and banding too. The lower DR of Canons and the appearance of banding can be a factor in some photos and significantly reduce the quality of the end file. While this may not be important to most people most of the time - and here the Canons are just great - it is hugely important to some people a lot of the time because of how they use their cameras and what they use them for."

So?

So? So you are right. I agree with with your thought process.

20
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 08:09:08 AM »
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor.

Please provide a logical solution to 'have the best sensor' (as you put it) and 'have a handholdable 600/4...and >40 cross-type points...and a 5x macro lens...etc.

The point is that the they are mutually exclusive.  If you'd like to fantasize, I'll take 30 stops of DR, 200 MP, ISO 1638400 with no visible noise and all 30 stops of DR, and throw in a handholdable 1200mm f/2.8. 

Dilbert's claim that more DR at low ISO than Canon offers is a 'free feature' isn't tenable.  Bare silicon sensors don't take pictures.  Those sensors are parts of cameras, which are parts of systems.  We buy cameras and systems, not sensors.  Sure, I want the best...everything.  But in the real world, we have to make choices.

Yes, you are right - I am being greedy. I wish Canon would give me the best of everything. :)

21
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:40:16 AM »
Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

How do you conclude that it's 'free'??  Does that extra low ISO DR come with a handholdable 600/4?  Does it come with an AF system having >40 cross-type points?   Etc.

Dont understand. Just because we have handhold able 600, we should not get better IQ at lower ISO?

The point is, a lens that big is generally used for stopping action, which requires faster shutter speeds and higher ISO's. So the Exmor low ISO 'advantage' is totally moot.

I do not think that is the point. In decent light at f4 it is easy to get 1/250 and faster at ISO 100.
What the scientist is trying to say is that unlike Nikon, Canon shooters have a handhold able 600mm. I do not really buy that logic not to have the best sensor. 

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 05:03:38 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Funny, I like to compose an image in full resolution based on the actual light, and find the resolution of a ground glass far superior to that of a small, pixellated LCD. I'd rather compose in real time than with lag, and don't enjoy rainbow artifacts when I'm trying to base my image on color.

And generally I nail my exposures, by, you know, metering correctly in the first place.

But if it's adequate for you, great!

You don't shoot in RAW? The color you see through your viewfinder is irrelevant, you can change all that in post. What is critical are things like exposure and focus, both of which have OFVs as poor cousins to EFVs in terms of the information they deliver.

An EFV can tell you what is overexposed and what is underexposed. An OFV can't.

If you are doing manual focus, forget about it with an OFV. With an EFV you can switch on focus aids, plus you can zoom in on your critical focus point and visually see if it is in focus or not. An OFV - not so much - you have to guess, and on a one square centimeter piece of glass your guess is probably going to be wrong.

Absolutely correct about it all. And if anyone does not agree with you, ask them to shoot with a cover on the LCD. They will then understand!

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:57:31 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Nooo! With me shooting on RED and Alexia for film making I judge lighting in the viewfinder with perfect ease and success.

Tell that to Roger Deakins. :)

But while I am a big fan of optical finders over electronic ones, I'll admit the Alexa has a nice EVF and the red a... well... adequate one. Better than the current Rebel's OVF, even.

Even if so, you're in the minority. I find most modern DPs are awful at judging ratios and can't light a set without a camera in front of them. The others use a meter. :)

And give him my deepest regard. Yes lighting is foremost with the naked eye. But now with film gone away, the meters hardly come out, the monitor at the video village and the EVF do the job. And perfectly mind you. The suspense of watching dailies is long gone. What you see on the monitor is what you get. And if you don't, you can easily achieve that in grading. :)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 04:04:31 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

That's silly.  Pros don't give a flying you-know-what about whether they're in the under-$1000 pocket.  They care about things like low latency, maintaining dark adaptation of their eyes at night, fast focusing speed, and ability to see critical focus with the naked eye (at normal f-stops, anyway).  EVFs can't deliver that combination, nor are they likely to be able to deliver it within the next ten years.

The OLED displays are getting close to not blowing out your night vision, but they only last two or three years, and they have poor resolution, which means you can't focus accurately by eye alone (without zooming in and losing the ability to pay attention to what's happening around you, anyway).  And LCD-based EVFs have higher resolution and longer life, but have crap contrast and can't get very dark.  And latency and focusing speed have a long way to go.

I just don't see EVFs replacing OVFs for high-end still photography gear any time soon.  It's not that they're not quite ready; it's that they're nowhere near ready.  In theory, I could see them take over the Rebel line, but in practice, I can't see that, either.  the problem is, they won't be able to call them DSLRs anymore, and a sizable percentage of the folks who buy low-end DSLRs buy them because they're DSLRs.  Half of them don't even know what DSLR means, but they know that they want one.  So I would expect mirrorless cameras to continue to exist alongside true DSLRs for many more years even at the low end.  Then again, what do I know?  :)

While I agree entirely, and have suffered from using the C100's awful EVF during daylight enough to prove it, I find the Rebel line's finders so poor that I would take a great EVF over their dreadful OVFs in some circumstances and I think most inexperienced photographers who want WYSIWYG exposure, histograms, etc. would agree. Sony has marketed faux-dSLRs for years to the gullible; as have others. If Canon does, no huge surprise.

The idea that an EVF is better is laughable. Even the most precisely calibrated monitor won't retain the color gamut, resolution, and contrast of real light. If you find yourself preferring EVFs, either learn to shoot or consult your eye doctor. :)

But I've been spoiled a bit. The 5D Mark III has a gorgeous finder. I've used film cameras with poor finders and I realize it's all relative. I've found the Alexa to have an adequate EVF, but a mercifully uncluttered one (not even the option to pull up a waveform monitor or histogram!).

What is laughable is the notion that you need color gamut, resolution and contrast in a viewfinder.

The purpose of the viewfinder is to compose the image, nothing more.

EFVs can display extremely useful information that an optical viewfinder cannot, such as exposure information and focus information.

Nooo! With me shooting on RED and Alexia for film making I judge lighting in the viewfinder with perfect ease and success.




25
Lamb chop

26
Lenses / Re: What New Lens are You Most Excited About?
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:38:23 AM »
Sigma 150-600 sports. It may be heavier but I believe the AF will be better. My 200-400 1.x is up for sale. The Canon must be a better lens but I use this focal length just once a year and can't justify the cost.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:28:12 AM »
Many of us on this forum have been asking Canon to catch up with Sony, but we want Canon to catch up with their sensors, and NOT the horrible evf!

Unfortunately, the EVF end is inevitable. See here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/sensors-are-a-moving-target.html

"... it’s inevitable that DSLRs eventually become mirrorless... DSLRs are too complex to continue to drop in inflation-adjusted pricing and stay in that under-US$1000 pocket. So we’ll see separate parts (meter, focus sensor) move into the ever-improving image sensor, and the things they previously needed to support them disappear. Exactly the way Sony has done it in the A7 series...

Mirrorless approaches will drive out problematic complexity and cost; they remove components (meter, focus system) and put them on the sensor itself at no other tangible cost than R&D."

I like both EVF and Optical. Both should exist side by side. As of today.

28
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 03, 2014, 02:12:03 AM »
Even if the cameras are comparable at higher ISOs, having one that performs better at lower ISOs is always a nice thing to have. Think of it as an extra feature added in for free such that you don't just have IQ performance comparable to Canon's but better.

How do you conclude that it's 'free'??  Does that extra low ISO DR come with a handholdable 600/4?  Does it come with an AF system having >40 cross-type points?   Etc.

Dont understand. Just because we have handhold able 600, we should not get better IQ at lower ISO?

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:38:07 PM »

EVF are hopelessly bad. Still laggy. Yiiiiikes.

I'll take the tiny Rebel pentamirror any day over the EVFs available today.

The latest Olympus EVF has a lag of 0.016. (16 milliseconds). I wouldn't call that "hopelessly bad."

Even if it were true (I think it isn't), that's still hopelessly bad.  It needs to be under 5ms for all lighting conditions, preferably closer to 2ms.

I wonder if you have actually used an EVF. To me, after using XE2 for over a year, they are GREAT.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:33:31 PM »
If it goes EVF ... will Canon make it mirrorless? No more mirror-slap would be good!

Interesting to see how far Canon will go with this...

But obviously they're preparing themselves to do mirrorless in an SLR styled body, a la Sony A7.

Canon and mirror less? Naaaa that is for inferior camera manufactures. [Sarcasm]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 104