March 05, 2015, 09:50:23 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 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 124
316
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. :)

317
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.




318
Lamb chop

319
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.

320
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.

321
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?

322
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.

323
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]

324
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Rebel Going EVF? [CR1]
« on: October 02, 2014, 11:30:57 PM »
Oh no!!! The mighty Canon is going to have the lowly EVF. Oh hooo. Now what will all the anti EVF people say???
Let me start reading the thread after posting this…

It ought to be entertaining...

325
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 07:39:27 AM »
Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?

Nope - we expose our images properly.

Epitome of lack of critical thought here, especially from someone implying they are a sports/action photographer.  Sometimes the light is really low, where the only way to get a reasonable shutter speed is to underexpose.  Some photographers cannot afford fast lenses, so their only option would be to underexpose to get proper shutter speeds.

So, no other way to put it, but you are flat out undeniably wrong.  This sort of sensor would be incredibly helpful for very many sports/action photographers.

Call me a 'text book' guy but I do not believe in over exposing or underexposing. (Unless it is to create a mood). Why? Because I know wrong exposure effects IQ.

326
Portrait / Re: Can we identify this man?
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:10:20 AM »
I am baffled by some of the responses in this thread. OP sees a photo of someone who obviously is doing something wrong and wants that man be identified so he can be stopped. Is there something wrong with that? Seriously…
Would you want him doing this to one of yours?

327
This link is not good for my diet control.

328
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 12:05:02 AM »
Until I can look through a Nikon viewfinder and change ISO settings with my right index while also adjusting any other setting I need, I'm sticking with Canon.

Haven't you heard?  With a Nikon camera, you don't need to change ISO – just set ISO 100 and you're done.  In post you can push it to ISO 3200, with a SoNikon sensor that's easy-peasy and the IQ is still better than Canon.  Or so I've read somewhere or other...   ::)

You make fun of it...but it's possible. Because there is practically no read noise, digitally lifting ISO 100 to ISO 1600 or 3200 is effectively the same thing as actually using those ISOs (with the added benefit of having massively more dynamic range).

Jon, I hope you are wrong.  Serious, whats left when you have eliminated the science and have dug deeply into the art of photography....Composition?! Not really a concern on these massive megapixel cameras....

As Ron Popeil stated - Set It and Forget It -

Sorry, not sure I understand... You hope I'm wrong about what?  ???

Composition is obviously important. Getting good focus is obviously important. Getting the right frame is obviously important. I'm not saying they are not, no one who appreciates more DR is.

But here is my stance on the issue. When you nail all of those other factors. And, it's more than possible to nail every one with any pro- or semipro-grade DSLR from Canon or Nikon (and some even from Sony, and probably Pentax as well). We already have cameras with phenomenal AF systems, with very high frame rates (although the best frame rates do tend to cost), and composition is a simple matter of preference...reframe to taste. When you get all that right, what's left? Sensor IQ.

I already have awesome AF. I already have a great frame rate (7D) and a good frame rate (5D III, the 1D X is out of my acceptable range of cost). I already know how to get good composition. When it comes to landscapes, a lot  of it is simply a waiting game...waiting for the right light, the right weather, and being at the right place in time to get the shot. When all that comes together...the only thing I don't have, is the best sensor IQ money can buy.

It's not a complicated equation.  8)

I used to say that technology is killing XX .... in this case photography.  I am wrong about that, technology is taking photography in another direction, IMHO the wrong direction.  When technology levels the playing field for all afforadably, when all I have to do is turn that dial to the green P, not worry about the photo because post processing will take care of any issues, photography is dead.   Composition, lighting, position, weather are just reduced to chance moments that anyone carrying an IPhone has an equal probability of capturing that moment....Probably a higher probability ...

The younger generation are not looking for technology advances in a DLSR camera, what they do expect is that the technology advances are crammed into their IPhone 6. 

A camera is slowly becoming nothing more than a vehicle to take a selfie and quickly post it online for every to "LIKE".

Must tell you that I think just the opposite. Art can, and is created by an iPhone and such. Normal (selfie) sort of pictures can be created by top end cameras. It all depends upon the user.
Advancement in technology is a great thing to happen in life including photography. Lots of different kinds of pictures can be taken now with advancement in technology. And remember that not all photographers are artists. They take pictures to capture the moment.

329
No.
1. Resale value and
2. F4 at this focal length is fine for me.

330
Yes low light would have been much better. Also IS would have worked wonders. So voting for a 'yes'.

Pages: 1 ... 20 21 [22] 23 24 ... 124