October 21, 2014, 01:59:50 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 - Ivar

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
121
EOS Bodies / Re: Even Nikon has announced its FF successors.
« on: August 04, 2011, 03:28:08 AM »
Nikon has already announced its successors of its D700 and D3s, and they will be releasing it on the 24th August.

That's probably what Canon has been waiting for!  Wait for your competitor to announce their new product, so that you can trump them days/weeks later.  ;)

One can only hope the trumping is nowhere near à la adding additional numerical ISO figure without checking if it is going to be useful and up to one's standards.

122
EOS Bodies / Re: 1Ds Mark IV/1D Mark V Spec List [CR1]
« on: August 03, 2011, 03:46:11 PM »
What concerns 32MP then no way it is the 1Ds (it had been, if released a year ago). 9fps for the same amount of MPs sounds however quite impressive, though I highly doubt Canon would let any spec lower than the predecessor. So-so specs to me, cr1 sounds correct.

123
EOS Bodies / Re: Even Nikon has announced its FF successors.
« on: August 03, 2011, 10:28:46 AM »
While it is only a rumor, it makes quite sense - Nikon has 4 years development cycle (the D3s was 2 years mid-life modest update) and as I understand the press conferences for announcements are confirmed though no idea about the content. For Canon, we have no such dates, even rumored. Hopefully it will be not a catch up game this time.

As the supposed Nikon D4 is a direct competitor to the 1D MK4, I deduct that this is the body which Canon is going to update first despite the long lifetime of the 1Ds Mk3.

I personally have feeling that the Nikon D3s mid-life modest update didn't have less output than full-cycle 1D Mk4 (and this is what it makes a bit pale), the latter even looking more like a catch up by forced ISO specs, clearly not to be meant there without the sake of the competition.


124
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 29, 2011, 10:15:39 AM »
Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?
"Same Technology", I am assuming you mean same pixel density.  The picture quality (noise) per pixel is identical regardless of the acyual sensor size. The FF will have more pixel than the APS-H and hence better picture quality. Hydyn1971 is half right about the comparision of APS-C ans APS-H with the same pixel density.  besides a widen angle with the same lens, The APS-H will also have a higher resolution  and hence better opicture quality.

There are quite many variables currently, we need to use ceteris paribus principle ie fix some variables to understand each other.

Let's define couple of situations:
1) Let's suppose the same density PLUS the same technology used as a different technology with the same density can give quite a lot of variations in image quality:
   1a) a camera with a cropped sensor
   1b) a FF camera

2) Let the density vary meaning both, the crop camera and the FF will have N megapixels, again using the same technology.:
   2a) a camera with a cropped sensor
   2b) a FF camera

Now some thoughts:
3. For the first two cameras, 1a and 1b, yes, no problems to understand the benefits of a larger sensor IQ wise as it just records more data on a bigger surface (some characteristics may however degrade, for example fps when being constrained by the data processing capability ie MPs per second).
4. For the second case, let's suppose that for a given print at least 300ppi is available, I claim that ISO-wise the camera 2b is much better on paper.

The fear for APS-H advocates seems to be:
5. by being under data processing constraint, the crop camera, having the same number of megapixels, would end up with higher density thus better "reach"
6. FF is more expensive

In my opinion, at certain level of density in combination with high ISO (meaning fine detail is being lost), the benefit is questionable (look at the compact small sensor cameras, the density for SLR-s is going towards that). This is why I think it is time to change to FF in order to provide competitive IQ.

I also, let's be dramatic, hate lenses acting as being handicapped. It is a big deal for example 24-105 not acting like one. After all, the world is not composed of tele lenses only.




125
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 04:08:14 PM »
The 1.3 crop isn't the same mp as the full frame, the pixel size is about 10% smaller, 5.7 vs 6.4, there isn't a current 1.3 crop that gives the same mp as a current full frame.  Because there are less pixels, there is less processing time required for each frame.  The 1.3 crop currently has about 25% less data to deal with, thus is faster, the pixel size is similar size, so you aren't actually losing that much except frame size.

Absolutely true. With disagreement only in the very last sentence after the last comma. This is where the potential is not yet used by Canon.

If 1.3 crop was the same mp as a full frame, the pixel size would be about that (perhaps less) of a APS-C, which would give you just a single benefit of being able to take slightly wider angle shots than a APS-C with the same lens, but not much else, which would of course be too small a reason to spend £10's Millions in developing a specific 1.3 crop.

Let's try to go to the basics - do you agree that, provided using the same (and I mean the same) technology , the bigger light capture area has better signal, thus theoretically better IQ?




126
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 02:59:14 PM »
I haven't argued what you stated - if it is possible to process only x megapixels at 10fps, then you would rather have all "the pixels" in a denser form though in a smaller sensor area.

The question is, if there is more processing power (file, data, megapixels etc as you wish), whether it makes sense to make a FF 27MP camera or make a 1.3x 27MP camera (mechanically the ability is already there, it is only about the data)

I believe currently, that with today's technology, the pixel density doesn't matter for high ISO, but the size of the light capture area does - more pixels might not contribute to the higher ISO, but the overall quality is never less than bigger pixels at the same sensor area, for both at the same size print. This is the basis for the choice - would you like to have a better ISO or more magnification, being under the data processing constraint?

Ivar, I'm not gonna get into a tit-for-tat cut and paste exercise, it's clear you disagree with my point of view.  You simply ain't gonna get the same framerates with full frame as a crop frame, the files are smaller with a crop, which is why there will always be a market for a high end crop body.

If the Nikon range is so good, maybe you need to sell your Canon kit and swap to the dark side ;-)


127
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 10:43:58 AM »
Why do you think Canon should stop APS-H sensors? What is the interest for Canon?

Because Nikon gets all the benefits of having the advantage for more light. They can stuff easily more pixels, for Canon at this smaller sensor area not that much. Sports cameras are about ISO, isn't it?

As for the imaginable FF 1D price, it would still be closer to the current 1D line trend, Nikon cameras are quite good, the competition cannot be ignored.


128
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 27, 2011, 08:40:09 AM »
Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Simple really...   Take a look at the current camera body specs.

While the numbers are the same, the Nikon D3s looks better to me. If the 1D mk4 would have been a FF body, it had performed better for sure (=more light better image for the same technology). If you meant a comparison between the 1D & 1Ds then they are optimized for different purposes thus being different technology.

Quote from: Haydn1971
To answer your second part, a 16mp frame will be saved to a memory device quicker than a 21mp frame - it's about 75 % of the size, the 16mp frame will also be processed quicker than the 21mp frame for a given picture process engine.  Mixing in the Digic 4 process engine over the Digic 3 of the FF camera, is why the current 1.3x 1D has a frame rate roughly twice the speed of the current 1Ds.

This is what I said, the only limiter at least for 10fps was data and nothing else, sensor size doesn't matter.

Quote from: Haydn1971
With regard to the first point about ISO, again, read the specs, the newer 1D has a much greater performance in terms of ISO than the full frame sensor in the 1Ds or the later 5D.  I'm not a image sensor expert, I design roads for a living, but it seems plausible that the 1.3 crop sensor in the 1D has been optimised to provide better ISO performance than the then current full frame technology.  Should full frame technology be released in the next 12 months that match the 1.3 crop, I'm pretty sure the techniques will be deployed in the next 1.3 crop sensor to great affect.

As said, the technology is different. Apples to apples would be ISO optimized cameras, and there the Nikon D3s performs better.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Canon wouldn't be selling a £4k1.3 crop product if there wasn't demand for it's benefits, similarly they wouldn't by selling the £6k full frame product if everyone wanted the 5D instead.  Each camera has it's own advantages, it seems more implausible to imagine a gap between a 5D Mk3 at say £2.5k and a replacement 1Ds at a launch price of say £7-8k, the 1D sites slap bang in the middle. 

I didn't argue about the demand, I said Canon is having a bigger margin what concerns the cropper.

Quote from: Haydn1971
Sticking my neck out, I'd suggest that there is as much chance of the 1.3 crop disappearing as a 1.6 crop 1Dx in the future or a 3D appearing.

For me, for the former the probability is at least 2x higher if not more.

129
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 26, 2011, 08:41:07 AM »
Using the same technology, ALWAYS the bigger sensor wins in high ISO due to be able to collect more light.
As for actual products, it seems to me that the 1.3x is not the best option out there concerning high ISO, where did you get this idea? Also, frame rate has only to do with the amount of data to move, not to the sensor size. Imaginable 16MP FF 1D MK4 could have easily done the same 10fps as it does currently with the crop.

The real or relative benefits for crop are:
* more spread AF points, for some reason they cannot be expanded in FF
* cheaper to make (take a note however, the 1D-series is no way cheaper  to buy though, it is just more margin for Canon. Reality check - look at the 5D MK2 FF price or check Nikon FF equivalents)
* due to data throughput constraint a smaller sensor allows more density, ie. magnification. This has, however, limited potential as technology improves.

I'm a tad baffled as to why people see the APS-H format as dead - others have said elsewhere that the 1.3x crop offers better picture quality than APS-C, but much faster framerates and much higher ISO performance than full frame sister products.

Using the car analogy, the family car is the APS-C, the luxury performance saloon is the full frame, but hang on, I want the performance, but don't need the four seats of the big car - I'll buy the sports car instead ! Want a hatchback car, buy a micro 4/3rds, want a cheap Korean runaround ? Buy a compact zoom camera.

130
EOS Bodies / Re: End of the APS-H sized CMOS?
« on: June 26, 2011, 06:03:53 AM »
I think at this point the only way to improve remarkably the IQ is to increase the light gathering area.

131
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D Mark 4 now???
« on: May 11, 2011, 05:58:20 PM »
I'm not so sure about the big wait on the next 1D - Nikon is supposed to have a major update on its D3s and even when postponed it is still not that far. While this is a personal opinion, I think the 1D MK4 which was supposed to be a major update in Canon's line was rather a catch up (announcement timing just right after Nikon's announcement, 100K worthless iso addition because of competition's sake, the need to get the AF right) to the modest mid-life update of the D3s. So, the upcoming D4 looks like a pretty serious competitor which cannot be simply omitted.

Well, I think it would be safe to assume that Canon would probably announce the 1Ds, 5D, and 7D successors before we start hearing things about the next 1D. That's three major products, so I think its reasonable to assume some "off time" between each announcement.

Now, if you factor in the effects of the tsunami, I don't think announcement would start until late 2011 at the earliest. Note - announcement, not the time the new products hit the shelf (which could be anyone's guess).

So it's going to take a while before it gets to the 1D line...

132
Canon General / Re: Delays Abound?
« on: May 05, 2011, 08:14:50 AM »
One more argument adding more weight to the delay - PMA 2011 trade show cancelled.

"There are some launches in fall, but the significant ones tend to be in the spring."
Source: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11050410pma2011cancelled.asp

133
EOS Bodies / Re: A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]
« on: April 28, 2011, 10:08:15 AM »
The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor. 

In my understanding the DIGIC processing is in no way related to sensor size?

Thus, it is fully capable of FF 10fps assumed the megapixels number retains the same.



134
EOS Bodies / Re: A Random Roadmap: Lenses & Bodies [CR1]
« on: April 28, 2011, 09:46:19 AM »
I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.

Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.

If Canon doesn't want to fall behind Nikon in high ISO department (quite reasonable desire for a sports camera) they have no choice but go bigger (no smaller sensor can compete with bigger one in high iso), otherwise iso-sensitive (also IQ sensitive) people switch brand too? Also, there are many eagerly waiting their lenses to act as they were designed for. Counting pros&cons might not always be straightforward.

135
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D & 1Ds Rumors [CR1]
« on: April 08, 2011, 06:21:37 AM »
This rumor is what it is but to me it sounds plausible.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11