August 21, 2014, 12:57:11 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 62
61
I have an old Epson R1800 which has never given me a good clean print. it seems that if you're not banging out prints on a regular basis, the pigment inks dry, clog and render the head permanently damaged. I've found canon equivalents far less troublesome and the inks don't seem to punish you if you don't use them for a while. there are some awesome pro labs out there that are ultimately better and far cheaper in my experience.

Are you making sure you keep the wiper blade clean?... and the head capping station gasket?
lots of good video on youtube about cleaning those.
I had to do that to my r3000 after a head strike caused a lot of jets to clog.  Never performed a single ink-wasting cleaning.  just a few nozzle checks and cleaned the wiper and cap station and it's back to awesome.

62
.. merely a FF version of the very good crop sensor in the D7100/5300/3300

63

Quote
All I can tell you know is that I heard about a 54 Full Frame Megapixel sensor from Sony (with 2460 focusing points (no joke!) and the focusing area covers 78% of the entire sensor). It was actually planed for a 2015 release but maybe Canon will make them change those plans…


That would be a D4x sensor

64
I had a similar question a few years back and advice steered me towards the Epson R3000 over the Canon.
I've been very happy with my R3000, excellent output, easy to use, no maintenance issues.
Now I want a bigger one!

As others have said, buy cheap, pay more.
Buy a little bigger and you may have lower operating costs, depending on what you want to do and how much printing you'll put thru it.

I have output from my R3000 that's better than most labs at a lower cost and I don't have to drive to pick up the results.
if you intend to print enough, it's worth buying, especially when you can get it with some big rebates.

65
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 05:34:43 PM »
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.

'Getting the shot' ALWAYS trumps sensor-dependent image quality. ALWAYS.
13280 posts of not contributing anything new to the conversation

66
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.

67
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.

68
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?

69
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.

70
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.

71
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?

72
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.

73
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.

74
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

75
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.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 62