April 18, 2014, 06:38:13 PM

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 [2] 3 4 ... 10
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-b Images Leak & a New Kit Lens
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:09:40 PM »
Well, keep in mind that lower-end cameras sell a lot more than higher-end cameras and that if you intend to get people to move up to higher-end cameras, it's a lot easier to convince them if they already have one of your cameras (brand loyalty).

I think the trend has reversed what concerns DSLRs - the movement goes from big to small these days.
High end cameras tend to be tough solid workhorses, but they lack features attractive to average consumer.
Also, due to shorter lifecycle, one might find newer technology in smaller cameras and surpassing IQ in some areas.

Pessimistic, yes, but also realistic I'd say.


17
EOS-M / Re: The Next EOS M? [CR1]
« on: February 25, 2013, 01:22:38 PM »
+1

Both Canon and Nikon are living in the past -- building cameras for markets that don't exist anymore.

There is NO demand for compact P&S and none for step-up cameras. They have been replaced by smart-phones.

There IS a demand for small/light high-end cameras with a good selection of lenses. So what does Canon deliver ??? An under-featured and over-priced EOS M. Soon to be joined by another under-featured camera priced higher than the Sony NEX-6. WTF is going on ???

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 07, 2013, 08:52:03 AM »
Replacing the 5D3 faster seems logical. The mirrorless are developing on full speed and this is where a lot of R&D is going. Just being big (the camera) will not cut anymore, there has to be a reason behind. The biggest showstopper for mirrorless is AF, but it seems to be the area of attention - the phase detection on the sensor is another step towards equalizing.
What is left for bigger cameras? More light thus better sensitivity. However, as said more R&D goes to advancing smaller sensors. Rapid product cycles give advantages - as soon as new tech is available it shows up - rather than by waiting things to accumulate, while others may be already using it.

Yeah, might be complete bluffing. BUT the trend is here.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Hands on an image samples from the new Fuji X100s
« on: January 18, 2013, 03:06:25 PM »
Looks like a wrong forum.

What I agree with though is the excitement, which I haven't felt about Canon quite some time.

Wow!

I can't wait to get my hands on this camera and the same specs in the new X-Pro2.

http://www.flixelpix.com/featured/hands-on-the-x100s/

ET

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« on: January 03, 2013, 06:51:20 AM »
There will be a real (big megapixel) replacement for the 1Ds Mark III with an outstanding image quality.

Nice words. In recent years of development, Canon has been more about rumors, paper launches & products barely matching the price tag for the features offered.

Do not get me wrong - I sincerely hope they finally get back the title for innovation, however there is not much hard evidence this far for supporting the idea. I hope I'm wrong.



21
EOS Bodies / Re: Does a 39.3mp Sensor Exist? [CR1]
« on: December 31, 2012, 06:16:57 AM »
I wonder what that might mean. Looks to me video specifics is for video product line rather than for still cameras - the 5D3 didn't push much on the video side and a lot of cinema stuff was introduced instead. Even the 1-series still didn't get any better video.
What concerns 39.3MP for-whatever-amazing-price-figure in an unknown future doesn't sound like a challenge for current 36MP offering available right now and being rather cheap.

As some here probably already realize, 39.3 megapixels is kind of a magic number, since its resolution is probably 7680 (i.e.,1920 X 4 and 3840 X 2) horizontal by 5160 vertical. If you want a C300-style 2 x 2 binning sensor, except capable of being cropped to 3840 X 2160, that is the resolution you would want.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D2 for a day after 5D3 for 6 months
« on: December 21, 2012, 06:53:40 AM »
Not to start any argument, just an experience going from the 5D2 to a D800:
* Auto-ISO - a lot of customisation options: lower-higher high ISO limits, shutter speed limits, shutter speed limits finetuning in relation to focal length (slower,medium,higher)
* Much better AF (in comparison to 5D2)
* Recently needed to use timer release - again, plenty of options to choose from: the delay up to 20s, how many shots are taken at which intervals
* What I miss from the Canon side - the 85mm 1.2 II - what an amazing lens! And generally speaking lenses - the Nikon's seem to have more distortion. It can be easily corrected in post by using lens profiles but this means some image info is thrown away at the edges. Canon LCD implementation for shooting is also better as no mirror moves when pressing the shutter and the Canon's seems to have more clarity meaning easier manual focusing through LCD, especially when darker. By the way, 36MP is not at all that demanding, good results can be achieved easily when handheld and at moderately slow shutter speeds and with less brilliant glass.

* Updated: obviously, the low ISO DR is very impressive.

In order not to do only the talking, a recent shot:






23
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 13, 2012, 01:57:05 PM »
Makes absolutely sense!


I would actually rate the cameras (sensor included, so no Sony here) as such, myself:


NikonCanon*
Sensor:  10
Lens:  01
Body:  01
Flash:  11(tie, Canon's just got a LOT better, but Nikon's was always good)
Metering:  1.51(Generally a tie, but Nikon gets an extra half point because ALL of their cameras have good meetering)
Fans:  00(I think we fans are all a little pathetic when you get right down to it. ;P)
Total:  3.54


24
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM »
It is well understood the value of the 5D3 for weddings. But the same goes for other specialties like studio-landscape where the D800 does better. Different niche, different choice. I bought a 5D2 exactly for these reasons - big "unusable" file size for the time it was released, also very slow camera.

Now I really enjoy the true upgrade to my 5D2 (sorry for the JPG artifacts, also note not so good lens and it was handheld though quite high shutter speed):


25
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 13, 2012, 12:34:59 PM »
I think Bosman is referring to the rate of return.  Storage size goes up drastically (22mp vs 36mp) with highly diminishing returns in IQ.  So why do it?

May I suggest that with more MP more thinking takes place before the shutter is pressed?
That is certainly true with MF digital.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 13, 2012, 07:06:33 AM »
This assumes the same type of photography, but the cameras may well and are differently used.
Poor MF digital shooters. Btw. exactly the same could have been said also to the 5D2 users what is said today to D800 users, so there seem to be not much brand logic.

P.S. memories are priceless but memory is cheap (hint: choose what is worth it).

P.P.S memory sizes still increase and the storage gets cheaper faster than cameras are developed.

If you like going thru hard drives like water then the D800 is for you. 1000 raw images fills 750gig of hd space. No thanks. The buffer is terribly slow too, thats why they dont offer medium raw because med raw would slow it to a crawl.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 10, 2012, 09:29:06 AM »
This test is JPG.

But it mentioned that it could be applied in post. Does that mean the RAW without any extra processing is the same DR, but must be processed to achieve the 14 Stop DR?

This is like high ISO - some prefer more (or less) cleaning as opposed to default settings. Moving a shadow slider is no more difficult task. The key is if the source file breaks down during that process or not.

So yes, it needs to be processed - but it MUST contain the info to be extracted in the source.

A photo camera processor is always weaker than a PC, thus allows the latter using more complex and quality algorythms - this is why for the ultimate quality the RAW is preferred over in camera JPG engine (which is still good enough these days for majority of tasks).

28
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 10, 2012, 03:49:29 AM »
This test is JPG.

Then either Nikon has a really crappy in camera JPG engine to lose a 2.7 stop advantage, or more likely DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

DxOMark uses their own RAW decoder. It is my belief that DxOMark's RAW decoder cannot fully decode Canon CR2 files, so DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

The other possibility is that DxOMark is just marketing shill for Nikon.

Speculation...I've speculated for some time now that dxo could (as a very small company) be influenced (if you know what i mean) to purposely set up their testing procedure to favor one company over another in exchange for.....

Both nikon and canon are large global corporations with significant resources...this "influencing" could easily be done...imo.   Again, I'm speculating here, but we've observed time and time again in the global corporate world and in politics all over the world - money influences decisions.   Example, in the news today in the US...mitt romney raises $100 million dollars for his presidential campaign...um, that was just for the month of july AND why do citizens and corps give him that kind of money, we know why right??  Also, a couple months ago walmart was accused of a large scale bribary campaign in Mexico....humm.

Just some stuff to think about....and again, im just speculating and providing raw opinion.   Thanks.

I haven't seen A SINGLE evidence Canon doing better or even the same in DR department no matter the RAW converter.

DxO has clear methodics, while maybe not covering all the aspects, still being a scientific approach and very usable for one knowing what to do with that info.
Opposite to the forum - one "thinks" and "believes", with absolutely no evidence.

P.S. more than sure, the next gen Canon will have a lot of DR, definitely more than Nikon today.

P.P.S Now this is what I believe - Canon just wanted to use the same old tech for economics reasons. This is why there is no high MP camera currently from Canon - stuffing more pixels in and being less attractive in IQ and asking a premium do not exactly fit together. They compete with versatility, which is quite an argument too. Absolutely fine with that, becuse for most applications the IQ is already so good that it does very well even not being the top notch. 

29
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 09, 2012, 03:46:08 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

Without any additional ADL or any extra processing in camera and nothing on. The d800 gets the same DR as the 5D3? Its showing this, so does that mean all the nikon is doing is pulling more from the blacks and pulling more recovery by a software curve at the cost of noise? Its seems like fake DR to me.

If yes, This means that the nikon sensor is not doing anything better than the canon. Just adding a curve which I could do to the canon in post and get the same result right? This also confirms my suspicion that Bayer sensor have hit there peak already and new sensor design like the Fuji S5pro are needed to gain True DR.

If not, Is this test valid?

Just seems like a false 14-stop DR from nikon by this test.


This test is JPG.



30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:47:47 PM »
All that sounds like "me too" in a crowded place. Why would anyone buy a Canon version of the same?
Mediocre high ISO, less DR than competition.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10