October 25, 2014, 07:43:18 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 - x-vision

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 32
46
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 03:13:38 PM »

So, I wonder why all these 'photographers who need the Exmor/DR/4K etc.' don't go out and buy the D800/E cameras?

Look, man, people stay with Canon in large part because of the excellent Canon lenses - not because they are OK with the sub-par performance of Canon sensors.

Is there a Canon lens introduced in the past 10 years that has been a dud?
Some of these lenses were overpriced at introduction (e.g. 24-70/4L, the wide IS primes).
But after the inevitable price correction, mostly all offer good value for their excellent performance.

In addition, Canon has been very smart about pushing video in their DSLRs.

Overall, there's plenty to like about Canon's system.
Canon has done quite a few things right  and that has obviously helped them maintain their leading market share.
No arguments about that.

But you guys take all this to mean that only few people care about DR and sensor performance in general.
That's definitely untrue.

People do care about DR and sensor performance and I strongly believe that the 7DII will prove this.
If it reuses the 70D sensor (as it appears from the rumored specs), I predict that this camera will be met with indifference - despite its excellent specs overall.

Also, as I said in another thread, the 5DIII successor is the camera that is most at risk for Canon if it doesn't deliver the high resolution and high DR that Canon users expect. We'll see.

But even if Canon continues to maintain its leading market share, there will be always users like me who would be critical of sensor performance if lags behind the competition.

What's wrong with asking that the vendor of my choices excels in both lenses and sensors? How is that unreasonable??

I bought into the Canon system because it was the best at the time (in my price bracket).
Why should I be happy that this is no longer the case - despite that Canon is maintaining their market share.
And why settle for sub-par sensor performance just because I like Canon lenses better??

47
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 01:47:09 PM »
The 5D III with a SMALLER body???

I'm not disagreeing with you - and I'm not saying that the 5DIII should have been smaller.

Just saying that I've been expecting a camera like the D750 since in 2012.
And in 2012, I was expecting that the 5DIII would be that camera.
But that was from my point of view, though; Canon obviously had different ideas.

After the D810 and D610, Nikon is now rumored to have a third FF model in their lineup.
And from the rumored specs, that's the model that I'd be most interested in.
Hopefully Canon will have a similar model.
That's all.

48
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 07, 2014, 12:56:14 PM »
The way I look at it, the D750 will be a great addition to Nikon's lineup.

Back in 2012, I was expecting that Canon would beef up the AF system and frame rate of the 5DII,
make the body smaller, and lower the price to $2500.

In other words, back in 2012, I was expecting a D750 from Canon.
(My expectations at the time were based on where the DSLR market appeared to be going.)

Instead, Canon released the 5DIII at a much higher price - but also obviously targeted at pros.
So, not only it was much more expensive, it was also big and heavy and overall an overkill for an enthusiast/consumer like me.

[Update/clarification]:
Canon's decision to make the 5DIII a true pro camera is understandable and fully justified.
My point is that from my perspective as an enthusiast/consumer, a camera like the rumored D750 made
sense to me even back in 2012 - before Canon updated the 5DII.


Both the 6D and D6100 are targeted at enthusiasts/consumers.
However, these cameras are expensive enough to be justifiable only as long-term purchases.
And yet, their specs are not good enough for such purchases, IMO (the AF system in particular - especially on the 6D- are lacking).

So, as far as I'm concerned, the rumored D750 hits the bullseye.
It's supposedly an action camera but I see it as a well spec'd general purpose FF camera for enthusiasts/consumers.
The specs are good enough for the long term - which in turn justifies the high price.

We can only hope that Canon will be responding in some way to the D750.

Btw, I don't see the D750 as a 5DIII/D810 competitor.
As I said, it's really a well spec'd FF camera for enthusiasts, while the 5DIII and D810 and pro cameras.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:50:34 AM »
the fact of the matter is, a 7DII with an improved AF, higher FPS and a sensor similar to the 70D is a disappointment.
not because the specs are so terrible or it's not a significant upgrade but because it took so long to be announced. This camera could have been announced a year or two ago and wouldn't have been shocking.
At this point, people perceive Canon's sensor performance as stagnating. It was hoped that the 7DII would be the camera to change this. With a sensor similar to previous models it reinforces the notion that Canon has not been able to significantly improve upon sensor performance. This  is Canon's own fault for releasing so many 18mp sensor cameras and then the rather uninspiring 70D.
Back to my original point, all of these missteps would be less annoying if the 7DII had been announced a year or two ago. But by slowly drawing it out and building hype and excitement they have set themselves up for disappointment from people who already own similar products from the past and want something newer feeling.

+1000

Just to clarify, though: the hype was created by us, Canon users - not by Canon.

But on the other hand, I don't think the expectations of Canon uses have been unreasonable.

Over the years, the DxO overall scores for Nikon crop cameras have improved from 61 (D80) to 83 (D7100).
For the same period of time, Canon has improved from 62 (20D) to 68 (70D).
So, it's a 21-point improvement for Nikon vs 6 points for Canon (and it's the exact same story for FF cameras as well).

So, when the 7DII scores 69 at DxO, should I be disappointed - or am I supposed to cheer ??
Is it that unreasonable for Canon users to want to a more sizable improvement ??

50
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 05, 2014, 04:29:10 AM »
at this point I would like to see a new forum rule.

...

* Failure to comply results in ... Ban.

OMG, you are the Canon police. I knew it  8).

51
EOS Bodies / Re: A Rundown of Canon at Photokina
« on: September 03, 2014, 01:50:38 PM »
The AF might be awesome, but other than that it sounds awfully conservative for such an exceptionally long wait since the 7D.

+1000

52
The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.

At the consumer level, DR is hardly a factor when choosing one brand over the other.
It does matter at the high end, though.
Also, high DR is not the entire story, mind you.

You keep claiming that Canon's market share is unaffected by the DR advantage of Sony/Nikon.
And so far this appears to be the case indeed.

The real test for Canon, though, will be the 5DIII successor.

More than high DR, Canon users actually expect to see better sensor technology from Canon.
The 5DIV (or whatever it is called) needs demonstrate real, tangible sensor improvements.
Otherwise, Canon's market share will start eroding - at least at the high end.

It's shortsighted to argue that the better DR of competing brands has not caused Canon to lose market,
implying that users don't care much.
As I said, this is not just about DR; it's about better sensor technology in general.

Many will wait it off for one generation.
But nobody is going to wait for 10 years for Canon to come up with better sensors.
If the 5DIV doesn't have a high-resolution/high-DR sensor, you can be sure that many will buy Sony/Nikon and be done with it.

53
Any thoughts?

Before 2007, Nikon didn't have FF cameras.
Even their top of the line pro model, the D2X, had a DX format sensor (1.5x crop).

So, at that time, Nikon apologists were claiming that the DX format was in fact better than FF.
One of their arguments, for example, was that FF suffers from soft corners and vignetting - and hence DX was better.

But while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

And while the Canon apologists are argueing that you don't need more DR and resolution,
my bet is that Canon is hard at work addressing these - as it will cost them dearly if they are not.

Also bear in mind that the DR debate didn't actually start whith the D800.
When the 5DII was introduced, it was very well liked and received.
Very soon, however, users started complaining about shadow noise and banding.

Thus, the so called DR debate didn't have anything to do with Nikon initially.
Instead, it was about the shadow noise and banding of the 5DII.
The D800 only added insult to injury with its high-resolution/high-DR sensor - at a time when Canon decided to reuse the same sensor, basically, in the 5DIII.

So, go ahead and brush this off as a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side' - if that suits you better.
But it's a safe bet that DR/resolution will be addressed by Canon.

54
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:42:49 AM »
If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....

I hope you are right.

For example, the 7D2.... the sensor design for the pixels may well be the same design as the 70D, but if this rendition of the chip has the A/D moved over too, we could see a significant performance increase...

That's exactly what I'm hoping for.

If Canon moves A/D on the sensor, we can expect 1-2 stops better DR and maybe half a stop better ISO vs the 70D.
With these improvements, the 7DII image quality will be the same/better as on the 1DIV.
That would be pretty solid (and arguably the best they can achieve with a 1.6x crop sensor today).

Let's see if Canon will do it.
Because they might as well just reuse the 70D sensor, which will not be out of character for them ...  unfortunately.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:03:14 PM »
Sure, there is no question there are limits to how small you can shrink pixels with an FSI design.

Yup. That's the clarification that I was after  :P.

Quote
As far as I am concerned, BRING ON THE 96mp MEGAPIXEL MONSTROSITIES!! MUHAHAHA!!

LOL!

You are laughing but I bet that they are going to do it in 10 (?) years.

56
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:47:49 PM »
As I said. Technology has been marching on.

Right.

But even with light-guides (to guide the light onto the photodiode), there are still limits as to much you can shrink pixels.
These are physical entities and you cannot shrink them indefinitely with a given technology.
The light guide cannot have a diameter zero, which is obvious even from the picture you posted - if your keep shrinking the pixels.

You make it sound as if smaller pixels are always better - and that's not unconditionally true.
That's the only point that I'm making.

There's a physical limit that cannot be crossed.
That's why manufacturers are using finer and finer CMOS processes (Panasonic is down to 65nm now).
And also looking for alternative solutions - like BSI, Sony's stacked technology, etc..

So, smaller pixels are generally better - but only when newer, more advanced technologies are used.

There's also the issue of the full-well capacity of a photodiode.
Smaller full-well capacity automatically lowers SNR. You should know that.

So, it's a balancing act, really, for pixel engineers.
A blanket statement like 'smaller pixels are always better' is just that - a blanket statement.
Some necessary small print needs to be added to discussion 8).

57
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 09:45:36 PM »
Assuming equivalent or better sensor technology, more pixels is never bad.

You mean assuming better technology only.
For equivalent technology, this works only up to a point - at least for front-illuminated sensors.

In a front-illuminated sensor, the photodiode of a pixel is located at the bottom of a well, basically (see the left diagram):



The well is formed by the layers of metal wiring above the photodiode.

As pixels shrink, this well becomes narrower and narrower.
At some point, the well becomes so narrow that the micro-lenses on top can no longer focus the light on the photodiode.
This leads to light losses - and the resulting image quality degradation.

Thus, to further shrink the pixels, you need to switch to a finer CMOS process (or maybe BSI).

The likely reason that the 5DIII has 'only' 22mp is not because Canon no longer believes in megapixels (they do).
Rather, Canon appears to have hit the shrinking limit of their 500nm CMOS process, on which the 5DIII sensor is made.

The 70D is likely made on a finer CMOS process (180nm?), though, as I can't imagine that they've
been able to stretch their 500nm process to make the 20mp/dual-pixel sensor of the 70D.

So, smaller pixels are indeed generally better.
It's not a free ride, though; there limits as to how much you can shrink with a given technology.
Beyond that, you need to change your technology - or image quality degrades with smaller pixels.


58
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:06:38 PM »
I still say it's possible that it's the 70D sensor and new technology (better performance) at the same time.  This is because it's possible that DIGIC 6 will reduce read noise from the same sensor compared to DIGIC 5+ in the 70D.

The ISO range is reportedly the same as on the 70D, which doesn't bode well.
I really hope that I'm wrong, though :(.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:35:36 PM »
As a 70D owner, I'm very interested in the 7DII, as I'm hoping for better image quality.
But if the 7DII has the 70D sensor, I won't be buying it (at least until it gets heavily discounted).

60
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:31:00 PM »
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

The 7D has had a unique value proposition of having advanced specs at an affordable price.
And now that a refresh is coming, there's naturally a lot of interest in its successor.

The thing is, many tried the original 7D but weren't impressed by its image quality.
The hope is that the 7DII will address that.

If the currently rumored specs are real, though, the 7DII will have the 70D sensor.
So, not much of an improvement in image quality.

Thus, the big interest in the 7DII might not translate into big sales.

Canon supposedly knows their business.
But they will be missing a golden opportunity, IMO, if they don't put a better sensor in the 7DII.
A certain group of users are reluctant to move to FF - and yet, wold appreciate better image quality.

As a 70D owner, I'm very interested in the 7DII. So, I'm (actively) contributing to the big interest in the 7DII.
I won't actually be buying one, though, if IQ is the same as the camera that I already have.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 32