July 30, 2014, 03:46:53 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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 61
46
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:32:39 PM »
....
In DxoMarkLand, Canon is outscored by Nikon, Sony, Fuji, even Pentax.  In the real world people buy camera systems based on their needs, and the fact that more people buy Canon dSLRs and lenses than any of their competitors' indicates that Canon better meets the needs and/or desires of more photographers.  That's reality...whether or not you can deal with it.

And those needs may be things like "I want WiFi in my camera." at the top of the customer's list.

knowledgable users buy what they need more than uneducated users who buy what marketing tells them they should want. That's what Neuro keeps getting wrong.

Users buy what they want/need, not what you think they should want/need.  That's what you keep getting wrong.

not sure why you bother quoting my statement if you're not even responding to the point I made.
so you're still getting it wrong ;)

then you include:
Quote
Not everyone (in fact, almost no one) needs to push their exposure 4-5 stops in post.
you might actually expend some effort into posting an intelligent and considered response instead of mere sarcasm and trolling  ::)
By now you should know you can't push a Canon file 4 or 5 stops as well as you can an ABC camera's raw file.

47
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 04:43:39 PM »

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.


Ridiculous. In many situations, using base ISO would damage image quality (i.e. when the end result would be unwanted blur, either from motion or from narrow DOF).
I think you're confusing "getting the shot" vs "image quality." They overlap but are not equal.

I'm saying that undesired blur in an image, for example, decreases image quality. There is far more to image quality than dynamic range and noise.
I understand and agree with you.
I'm just pointing out that the 2 aspects, image-quality vs getting-the-shot, do not embody exactly the same criteria as they are generally priorities for different situations, not necessary directly comparable.

48
Reviews / Re: Nikon D4s VS Canon 1Dx Comparison
« on: June 21, 2014, 04:37:29 PM »
well, fair enough I guess, some mod' completely deletes a new topic because it was similar to this one already in place.  Too bad there's no mechanism in place to move the post or notify the OP to that effect.

so I'll repost some of it here.


If I were a pro sports 'tog I'd strongly consider the D4s simply for the better battery life and much deeper raw buffer depth.

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-vs.-Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Consummate-performers

as for it's incremental superiority in almost every other sensor metric, not likely enough difference to matter

tho this conclusion, burned into the URL as a particular comparison, is bound to annoy certain Canon fans

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1D-X-vs.-Nikon-D4s-sensor-review-Consummate-performers/Canon-EOS-1D-X-Versus-Nikon-D4s-Nikon-has-the-advantage

Has anyone, and I mean a real dual system user who's spent enough time with each system to know it well rather than a 2 day rental kind of tester, evaluated the differences between these 2 cameras using comparable glass and have any real-world user observations or opinion to contribute?

49
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 03:12:26 AM »
....
In DxoMarkLand, Canon is outscored by Nikon, Sony, Fuji, even Pentax.  In the real world people buy camera systems based on their needs, and the fact that more people buy Canon dSLRs and lenses than any of their competitors' indicates that Canon better meets the needs and/or desires of more photographers.  That's reality...whether or not you can deal with it.

And those needs may be things like "I want WiFi in my camera." at the top of the customer's list.

knowledgable users buy what they need more than uneducated users who buy what marketing tells them they should want. That's what Neuro keeps getting wrong.

50
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 03:08:36 AM »

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.


Ridiculous. In many situations, using base ISO would damage image quality (i.e. when the end result would be unwanted blur, either from motion or from narrow DOF).
I think you're confusing "getting the shot" vs "image quality." They overlap but are not equal.

51
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 03:02:46 PM »
Is the A7s now the king of low light photography?

it's not king by much
the real ?, at least for many Canonistas here, is how far down the list do we have to go to find a Canon?

52
it's most likely for small camera systems to produce good low light results using cheap, simple, fast lenses.  First use will probably be phone- cameras.  Getting the required amount of curvature in larger sensor systems is likely to be much more challenging as slight (focus) errors of a few microns could occur with temperature shifts and if you're looking to make a compact, large sensor camera with this then you're really gonna have to decrease the radius of that sensor's curvature.  So, more likely practical for 1/2.5 and smaller sensors.
Still, will be very interesting if they can effectively achieve this for larger sensor formats.

53
Over the past vew pages the bunch of you have just had the most beat-around-the-bushes discussion of Signal to Noise Ratio I've ever seen.

Can't someone find or come up with a simpler explanation of how SNR affects image quality that you can all agree on?
I think 100 was closest in his last post and could simply add that, sensor technology (e.g. pixel size, read noise, dark noise, etc.) being about equal, when printing or scaling to any given size, the greater surface area of a FF sensor allows more noise averaging to occur than the same image, shot with the same field of view, from a smaller sensor.

54
60D is my second most favorite Canon DSLR body of the 10 or so models I've owned.
40D is still my favorite.
that's not a bad price for a refurb with some warranty

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: June 07, 2014, 04:06:07 AM »
That's a shame - I thought it looked rather appealing (at least in terms of the dials on top). And thanks for the extra crop.

I still really like using it, it's a sweet little camera!  Just some vexing buttons on the early models.
Rumor has it... they've been improved in later production and there may even be a retrofit...
I was just gonna glue some "extensions" onto them to improve things.

Quote
As for the much-touted superior high ISO performance of Fuji X cameras, have you encountered this issue?

I've got a few Fujis and I've found that the biggest benefit is that the X-trans is remarkable free from blotchy chroma noise at high ISO.
The bayer-sensor X-A1 is about as chroma noise prone as any other modern sony-based sensor.
Fuji's in-camera processing is very good tho, and may account for some of that low noise appearance.
I haven't had enough time to mess with the raw files to draw my own conclusions.  But that brings another; for someone like me who's used to shooting everything raw and tweaking in post, I find I can get a lot more shots the way I want them right out of the Fuji camera as a ready-to-go jpg for many uses.

I have not put my Fujis head-to-head with my Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Olympus gear to see how they all expose the same scene.  It's something I'm interested in doing tho, as I found some interesting metering ideosyncracies with my D800s and moreso with all my Pentax DSLRs.
My Canons seem more closely attuned to my Sekonic Light meters over a wider range of lighting and the Oly's I haven't wrung out yet.

DPreview found an exposure difference tho.  And I would not be too surprised if there is.
..  actually, just doing a sunny-16 check on some XE1 shots from last weekend it seems it's about 1.5 stops off.  I'd have to use my lightmeter and gray cards to really pin it down but looks like it's averaging ~ 1.5 stops more exposure is required at a given ISO.

I hope DxOmark figures out how to test them soon, for info' sake.  i like the output regardless, I'll keep shooting with them.  The lenses provide a nice looking rendering.

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:23:24 PM »
Marsu, you're spoiling all of the fun.  You can't discuss real-world applications, and worst of all, post actual photos that show what you're talking about.  What's wrong with you???  Get your head back in the clouds and most of all, stop shooting.

:-> ... to redeem myself: Before Magic Lantern got the dual_iso module I was constantly trying to argue that more dr makes sense which was not very well received esp. during the height of the d800 vs. 5d3 flame wars. I couldn't really argue back then because my good ol' 60d is maxed out @10.5ev so I had nothing to show except nerd speculation.

But now I can say: I was correct! I really can put the extended dynamic range to good use :-)
Good examples, and the reason some seem to think this doesn't matter is because, until such solutions as this, you COULD NOT EASILY MAKE SUCH IMAGES.  So there were few such situations because they were avoided or extra lighting used to flatten the DR of the scene, the latter not often being practical or even possible.

57
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:07:16 PM »
That is laughable for several obvious reasons, first, they are saying the Ziess lens is perfect and causes zero resolution loss, that is impossible, it is either breaking the laws of physics, or their measurements are suspect yet again. And, just read any Nikon forum where people own both, and there are a surprising amount, they will tell you that is simply not true, yes the E does resolve slightly more, but 30% more, no.
unhindered by a normal AA filter, tell us why the camera cannot resolve a line-pair per line-pair of pixels using a lens that can resolve at even finer levels.

From what I've seen with people and their cameras, MegaPixels area little like horse power in their cars....at some point every one says..."I think that's quite enough". For some, that's around 100 bhp....for other's that's around 400 bhp (me a Jag XKR), others aren't happy until they have a Veyron or a LaFerrari. Everyone has compromises, desires and needs which vary from each other.

Uhmmm... SORT OF related....
but we're arguing the difference an AA filter effect has on the same hi res sensor and how that can vary with different lenses used with it.

to reply to your point, I'll take all the good MP I can get, especially when there's no other significant drawback to doing so.

... gotta go spin my wheels now. ;)

58
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:00:37 PM »

....

So pay attention, YOUR 1DX is the red line, note how IT'S MOSTLY AT THE BOTTOM of every chart.

....


Assuming those measurements are accurate, to what extent to any of those gaps in performance result in a visible difference in a photo?  I get the low ISO shadow noise thing (I've seen it myself readily enough on the few occasions it's mattered), but the rest?

probably little in many cases, especially long-lens shots of low DR scenes.

the point is, neuro is trying to sell his brand of kool-ade with a skewed set of information and a poor behavioral attitude which he's always quick to accuse others of.

It's more a SMACKDOWN of neuro than of Canon. ;)

59
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: foolish internet trolls
« on: June 05, 2014, 02:55:19 PM »
You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.

Still no facts from you showing a Sony sensor with better performance above ISO 800.  Since you're clearly unable to back up your statements, there's no point in further discussion.


DOUBLE-SMACKDOWN!

I post a comparison where a difference is well over a full stop (closer to two), you post a set of comparisons where the lines are nearly touching in most cases, generally with <1/3-stop difference (almost certainly within DxOMark's measurement error, although they don't state their error...or even that they made >1 measurement).  Yet somehow, you seem quite impressed with yourself despite your manifestly weak data interpretation skills. 

I suggest you go take more shots with the lens cap on and push the exposures 4 or more stops in post.  Something useful like that will occupy your time and keep you from looking silly on the Internet.

Yup, there's the weasel feces. :)
Probably took him all night to find a weak angle to strategize to try sounding correct and all we get is semantics and attempts at personal attack, which, if anything, proves my point further.

Neuro, If I really need to explain the meaning of that data to you you're either too dense to get it (I doubt that) or too far in denial (more likely) to comprehend it.

geez, it's trying trying to argue with a borderline
I think RLP's right.
Maybe it's time to convene an intervention for you, maybe something with a 12-stop program?... ;)

60
Actually, Olympus did most of the market research and it is now all done. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and FUJIFILM are now applying the results of that research and reaping the benefits. By the time Canon (and Nikon and Pentax) finally get going, all those people who are willing to embrace new technology (in the form of mirrorless) will be already using other systems than theirs. Now, you might argue the adapted lens stance, but remember that a company like Canon does not make the bulk of its "photographic" profit from the sale of 600mm lenses ... they make it from the sales of xxxD/Rebel with a single kit lens jobbies.

Agreed, and with more on that
- Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but has niche uses, it could be improved easily enough and was not bad for a first attempt at something they're not sure how to do.

- Pentax' K-01 is a great imaging machine but seriously handicapped by being so large & heavy, and IMO, tied to the current K-mount. they could have made it compact, with a short register distance, and allowed legacy K-mount lenses to be supported to some extent with a simple adapter instead.  Kind of like they did with that oddball Q system;  another decent and useful little mirrorless system that might just be a bit TOO small to be taken seriously.

- Nikon's 1-system, seems to be well thought out but so far under-appreciated.  The extreme performance of the new 1 V3 might change some minds tho.  Fully kitted out with a grip and EVF it's kind of tempting but too costly to be justifiable if you don't really need its unique (speed) features.


Quote
The future lies in (a) mirrorless and (b) high-MP mirrorless ... and the future is NOW.

Bang-on! :)

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 61