July 29, 2014, 05:32:41 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 01:05:03 PM »
You realize this argument will be pointless when the 7D2 comes out with the 120Mpixel sensor, ISO 204,800, and 18 stops of dynamic range.... :)

Imagine how cool 18 stops would be!

As the Alexa, Red Dragon, D810, A7s etc all seem to top out at 14.5 to 15, I do fear that barring some new tech, that is the limit.

When Canon, Panasonic, Toshiba, Samsung etc all hit it, it will be great, and we can all talk about photos again, and not dynamic range :-)
24 bit ADCs and RAW files ;).

The D800 is nice. That would be difficult to deny. If i felt like incurring the expense of a system change, I'd likely look towards the d600 first, until Nikon's lens infrastructure catches up with the sensors. Granted, any increase in detail is a good thing, but when on average across the lens lineup (per DXO) the 23MP 5D outresolves the 36MP d800, it makes me wonder about the efficacy of changing systems at this point.

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 06:32:35 AM »


...
Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain.

When something is presented without a qualifier such as "I think that .." or "In my opinion ..." then it is as if someone is stating a fact.

"What can you come up with other than...?" doesn't serve as a sufficient qualifier? You honestly read one of several possibilities presented in the context of a question as a statement of fact?














3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 28, 2014, 11:31:02 AM »
Let me make it simple for you..

DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?

1) Explain how DxO is accomodating or more clients more important to them
2) Explain your reasoning  behind using the phrase "joined at the hip with Nikon."

Let me try to help you read and comprehend what I originally wrote:

EDIT: or perhaps you're suggesting a third possibility that I intentionally dismissed, namely that Canon is a client but DxO chose to not display the logo of the leading manufacturer of dSLRs among their clients.  Possible reasons for that could be to placate other clients more important to theme, i.e. Nikon (which would certainly imply some sort of hip-joining) or simply because DxO is foolish.  Is that what you're suggesting?

In other words, I was providing plausible explanations for a possibility that I had already indicated I thought to be so unlikely that I didn't even mention it initially.

Of course it is easy to claim anything after the fact but the fact remains that your initial public attempts to explain something were built around alleging misbehavior by DxO.

Quote
Seriously, look into some remedial education.  Maybe we can have this discussion someday when you've learned how to comprehend what you read.  Until then, it's merely a waste of time.

I love how you pick and choose which questions to answer that are put to you! You'd make a great politician in the way that you evade questions and queries that are put to you.

Look, I'll be easy on you and give you the chance to respond to one request at a time.

* Please explain how DxO is accomodating [f]or more clients more important to them.

Why would you want someone to explain how something is true that he has clearly stated above (I am not privy to whatever history you two have) he believes to be untrue?

Playing Devil's Advocate is a useful tool in learning formal debate, but what exactly are you looking for in this discussion? To improve Neuroanatomist's debate prowess?

In case you haven't noticed, the bit you are asking him to explain "how DxO is accomodating..." wasn't an allegation, it was a possible explanation.

Quote
"What can you come up with, besides 'Canon didn't permit it' (which I have already suggested as the most likely possibility), DxO is accommodating one or more of the clients more important to them (e.g., they are 'joined at the hip with Nikon', which you have been arguing against), or DxO are makes foolish business decisions?"

Those are one person's ideas to explain the lack of a logo on a website; they are not presented as certain. Further, as stated, he doesn't even think the "joined at the hip" part is the most likely reason. He thinks Canon didn't permit it. I tend to agree. One possible reason for that possible reason is that Canon doesn't like how its products stand up on the scoring metric, and thus aren't willing to imply approval by permitting their logo. I hope you don't ask for evidence of a possible reason for a possible reason.

4
Weird. It's as if the shutter got hung up (open) briefly. If so, send it to Canon. I'll be interested to see if there are other explanations.

5
Lenses / Re: Something with 50mm L lens that make it different
« on: July 21, 2014, 03:03:54 PM »
2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.

This is the one that often comes up that I believe PBD is attempting to shed light on. Forget everything that requires side by side constant lighting to compare, and just point out which of the images in his collage are 50L dreamy. I can not. Can you?

Side by side yes, I'm sure most people could pick out differences. But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 17, 2014, 03:22:03 PM »
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

If someone can offer me an EVF with zero distinguishable lag and a dynamic range and color gamut matching the sensor, I'd eat the battery weight. I suspect producing a 12+ stop display may be challenging, however. They may be able to do it with clever back- and side lighting, but that would jeopardize the accuracy.

7

Now reasonable is 1 MP per upgrade is proabably a bit more reasonable.

Sure, a 1MP upgrade is more reasonable/realistic, but it certainly isn't interesting :)

8
What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?

...

At the moment I can't think of anything to answer either of those questions.  Anyone?

Plenty. They can put the 1Dx AF unit in. They can bring back CF. They can make an APS-C version of their 120MP APC-H sensor. Etc.

There is quite a lot they CAN put in it. The better question is what WILL they put in it, and history suggests that if there are any improvements beyond a higher model number, they'll be marginal. DPAF seems likely.

1dx AF?....that will never be in a rebel

CF, doubtful as  the market trend is SD for the low end

120MB sensor???? are you smoking something????

The rebel is never going to have anything crazy like that.  and a dev announcement????  I really doubt we'll see that as there is little to no dev going into it ---it's a rehash of the old which is what happens on a product that gets refreshed yearly.  With new FF bodies on the horizon and the 7d's replacement, they have plenty to talk about.  Rebel releases will only get hype in a year that offers no other significant model updates.

Think you missed the point man, he said they COULD put anything in from the awesome tech they already have, including the 120mp (not mb like you wrote) aps-h sensor, which is real btw. But they don't put that in becasue obvious reasons.

Exactly. The open ended question in the OP was "What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?" They can put any tech they're capable of producing into the T6i. They won't, but they can.

9
What can Canon put into a T6i to make it interesting?

...

At the moment I can't think of anything to answer either of those questions.  Anyone?

Plenty. They can put the 1Dx AF unit in. They can bring back CF. They can make an APS-C version of their 120MP APC-H sensor. Etc.

There is quite a lot they CAN put in it. The better question is what WILL they put in it, and history suggests that if there are any improvements beyond a higher model number, they'll be marginal. DPAF seems likely.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: To filter or not to filter
« on: July 14, 2014, 05:42:56 PM »
I use filters to accomplish something. It could be to facilitate wide open or long exposure shots in daylight, it could be to cut glare, it could be to complete weather sealing, etc. If there is no specific goal a filter is part of, I don't bother.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:07:55 PM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

Consider that across the Internet, criticism of DxO typically only comes from people that own Canon products. That piece of data speaks volumes about how DxO results are absorbed, don't you think?

I'll take your word for it. It may speak volumes, but the words don't necessarily mean anything in particular other than the fact that many consumers like to have their purchases validated even if a black box third party does the validation with esoteric scores derived using undisclosed methodology.

12
Canon General / Re: Seeing Rebels....
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:01:58 PM »
Am I the only one who doesn't care what mode random people use? It's one thing to observe what camera someone has (and since manufacturers often put the model name on the strap, it's easy for those of us to don't follow the mass market offerings closely) from afar, but getting up close enough to observe mode-selection dials? That's weird. IJS.

It's kinda obvious when rebel users came to me and asked for photography advice. Not only they were shooting in the green mode, they were also using auto focus(camera focus to nearest point.)

Would that considered as "weird"?

Of course when someone asks you for advise it isn't weird to first observe what they are currently doing. That's appropriate.

I just got the impression (for example from the post above citing a percentage) that people were scoping out random passers by, "haha that dude is on automatic, he must be a total noob," or "lol that chick bumped her dial to bulb and she probably won't notice until it's too late to get the bride and groom kissing, loser."

It's not like I particularly care if people look at the dials on my cameras, it's just kinda a weird curiosity, especially since the dials don't tell the whole story.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:28:13 PM »

Hey, that can't be - Canon has TWO "N"s, Nikon has only one "N".   ;D

I take a lot of "information" on the net with a giant crystal of sodium chloride.

Hmm, I see what you mean about the salt........

In Nancy's defense, people often misspell it CANNON (usually when asking which "lense" to buy).

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 10:39:03 AM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 08, 2014, 11:44:47 PM »
its' impossible to fully realize the full resolving power of a sensor with a high resolution lens, and to get very close, you rapidly run into diminishing returns. You get to the point where doubling your lens resolution gets you a few line pairs closer.

It's an asymptotic relationship...system resolving power is asymptotically related to the resolving power of the lowest common denominator of the system.

Thus the moral of the story is: if your primary goal is to maximize system resolution (and for the majority of people, that's likely not the case, regardless of what one may read on some fringe forums), always upgrade the weakest component.

Yeah, pretty much. Although that can become prohibitively expensive at some point.

The 7D is a good camera, but it doesn't perform terribly well with the telephoto lens it's most often paired with, the 100-400. However if you move up to one of the Canon great white primes, the 7D becomes a stellar performer at ISO settings 1600 and lower, and becomes viable at ISO settings higher than that in the evenings. It's just that you have to spend a LOT of money on those lenses to maximize the potential of the 7D.

On the flip side, if you upgrade the camera itself, to one with a higher resolution sensor (which the 7D II should have), then instead of spending $6000 to $13,000, you spend maybe $2500-3000. It's still a large chunk of change, but not necessarily prohibitively expensive.

Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21