November 28, 2014, 05:12:10 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 31
121
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 19, 2014, 12:06:50 PM »
I am doing my best, to understand why it is a bad thing for a company to give consumers a choice. I wish that Canon would give us choices like this. Its great that Canon offers a bunch of different lenses, but not ok for Nikon to offer a bunch of different cameras?  That is hypocrisy to me.

I think the people complaining do so because quick refreshes hurt resale value. Why they think Nikon should protect the price of used gear at the expense of customers ready to buy new gear (if they sat on the 610 for two years and sold off the flawed 600 stock, that would be truly something to criticize) is beyond me, but maybe it feels different for people who buy gear based on a schedule rather than on an as-needed basis.

122
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron 150-600mm availability
« on: August 15, 2014, 11:35:48 AM »
Mine shipped from BH today (August 15). I ordered it May 5.

123
Canon General / Re: Gear Realities
« on: August 14, 2014, 05:17:54 PM »
Nice summary, with one glaring omission…you completely forgot to discuss the gear considerations for cat photography!

 ;)

Not to mention book plagiarism photography, which requires pro high FPS bodies, super zoom lenses, and third party speedlights.

124
Software & Accessories / Re: Aluminum vs. Carbon Fiber?
« on: August 14, 2014, 03:51:43 PM »
There is no general better choice, it depends on you usage. If aluminum weighs a little more than you want and causes you to leave it at home, then it was a bad choice. CFRP is easier to haul around, but may require additional loading for stability (mefoto's come with he sandbag hook, but that doesn't necessarily mean you'll have anything to attach to it).


125
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 12, 2014, 06:11:18 PM »
Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.

Of course, you can often creatively work around such contracts.  For example:

1.  Use the information to build a testing rig for the Canon lenses that tests every single command, with emphasis on edge cases.  This is needed for the contract anyway.

2.  Use the test rig to validate a "lens" that behaves according to the reverse-engineered spec.  Tweak until it passes.  At that point, if your test rig is complete, so is your reverse-engineered specification document.

Even then, though, they may be using a procedure developed for say a Canon 18-55 to acceptance test their own design for a 150-600, which may not be appropriate.

Also, it depends on how a contract is written (and how faithful the company is to the contract). If I were a Canon lawyer, I would specifically preclude any sharing of Canon intellectual property and associated technology across the company. If I get a proprietary spec from a client, I can't copy it longhand into my notebook and then use it for other purposes, nor can I embed it in software and use it for other purposes (at least not legally).

Whatever the case, the third party glass designers aren't privy to the information required to match Canon's own designs and algorithms, for obvious reasons.

126
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Dual Pixel Phase Detect AF While in AI Servo
« on: August 12, 2014, 04:20:05 PM »
I'd certainly welcome the demise of that flapping mirror.

So would I, except for the fact that all the alternatives are dramatically worse.

For the time being, yes. But display and battery technologies march forward. Eventually, EVF may come without a significant penalty, and when that happens, I'll sign up for sure.

127
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:16:36 PM »

No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?
Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

Yes. Canon and Nikon both use Tamron to build (generally low end) Canon-branded lenses.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

Well, certainly they'd give required documentation and design for specific contracts.

Whatever they do provide may not be sufficient for ground-up design and, if it is, it's most certainly sequestered (proprietary, authorized for specific contractual use only) from the ground-up engineers at Tamron.

128
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:53:37 PM »
No, they don't. Why would Canon ask them to build a lens for their cameras and then not give them the specs they need?

Canon asked Tamron to build EF lenses?

129
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:50:31 PM »
The toughest part is hitting that little M.fn button next to the primary dial...there is probably a more accessible place for that button. But once it's pressed, actually selecting the AF point is not difficult at all.
I use the top right button at the back

I center-press the joystick to return the AF point selection to the center. Doing that unlocks it. Thumb is already there, just press it and then toggle the joystick.

130
Lenses / Re: Tamron 150 600 woes
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:07:41 PM »
i was told (possibly by a tamron rep ) but don't hold me to that .that the problem is the fact that canon will not let tamron have the lens algorithm table to get it right most of the time ,whereas nikon and sony let them have access to theres .i don't know if this makes sense or is even the truth but most problems with this lens seem to be coming from canon users ,the pics i am seeing from the nikon ones are spot on ,with hardly any complaints from nikon users at all .
   i borrowed one for a day and in all honesty i was not impressed with a/f at all and would rather use a 400mm f5.6 plus 1.4tc on my 1D3 to get the  reach .


The problem with that oft-repeated theory is that Tamron makes lenses for Canon. They do for Canon as well. They couldn't very well do that if Canon didn't give them all the information they needed, could they?

They reverse engineer, with obvious shortcomings.

131
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 10, 2014, 09:53:47 PM »
And no, I don't contrive situations to make Canon sensors look bad, those situations exist everywhere, all the time.

I think this thread, and the multitude in the same vein, could use some perspective. Let's stipulate that dynamic range capability is the end all most important quality of an imaging device. Surely, then, god himself descended from the heavens to breathe life into my A7r.

Here's the thing, though. Its DR preservation is better: marginally. It's not significant enough to call it great and canon crap. It isn't different enough to change how I shoot. If I take landscapes, I still use grad ND filters. If I shoot bikini models on the beach in daylight, I still use reflectors and speedlights. If I shoot in a studio environment, I still use strobes.

If the A7r is great, Canon is pretty damn good. If canon sucks, it sucks a little less. The A7r facilitates better cropping when I can't achieve the framing I wish, but since I stipulated that DR is paramount, resolution is a side issue, and DR differences, while real, are marginal.

132
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 11:38:36 PM »
That said, you wouldn't say that a sensors native ISO is where it gives it's maximum image quality?

I think most people agree that native ISO is where a sensor performs the best. A sensor alone doesn't make an image. That's where you two really differ, because you tend to shoot different subjects: static versus fast and unpredictable. For the former, a photographer has the ability to use a tripod and slow shutter speeds, mid-range apertures, and often light the scene. For the latter, a photographer strives for fast shutter speeds at the expense of things like RAW dynamic range. The former likely will expend more effort raising detail from shadows (before eventually producing a raster with maybe 6-7 stops of DR, or a print with less), while the latter may indeed prefer to darken shadows in order to isolate the subject. The final result is an image, and that's where the quality matters. If the same photographers switch subjects but not technique, neither will likely produce images with noteworthy quality.


The D810 does indeed seem a capable body. If Nikon surprises us with a lens refresh on par with series II canon L lenses, that would be killer.

133
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:29:46 PM »
So, on the topic of DXO and their trustworthiness, since ZigZag decided to recreate his account and ruffle feathers again. I often use SensorGen.info, which uses DXO's raw data to provide unbiased statistics of cameras. I found this to be interesting:

http://sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html
http://sensorgen.info/NikonD810.html

D800 @ ISO 100:
QE: 56%

D810 @ ISO 64:
QE: 50%


Quantum efficiency got 10% worse with the new sensor? Or does sensitivity affect QE (hence losing 6 percentage points with the lower native sensitivity)?

134
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:40:30 PM »
People want WiFi in their cameras more than they do IQ.

WiFi seems like overkill to me, and requires additional hardware. I believe a firmware update could facilitate USB host mode, and some simple menus would then allow copying directly from camera to portable hard drives. For my purposes, that would be far preferable to WiFi.

But didn't you say something like 'Nikon smashes anything Canon has to offer'?

That thread got dumb when using sensitivity to achieve photos in significantly light-limited environments was portrayed as a sign of incompetence.

135
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:50:03 AM »
So what if they do? It's very hard to imagine them doing anything to beat the D810 when it comes to IQ, so if they do catch up, it will just be a level playing field.


You don't suspect that, if they were to release a camera (let's just pretend since it's unlikely Canon would deviate from their vertical integration business model) using the same sensor and signal pipeline, Canon's lens selection would tilt the playing field in their favor from an IQ standpoint?

DR would be roughly equivalent, but the canon system would likely resolve more detail given that the 5D3+lenses already outresolves the D800+lenses on average.

Quote
When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon.

When using specific lenses (such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A) the Nikon can out resolve the Canon. However, taken as a whole, the statistics reveal the EOS 5D MK III is capable of similar sharpness and of achieving a close DxOMark camera/lens score to the Nikon D800. Moreover, that’s despite the latter camera’s 60% extra pixel count.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 31