October 31, 2014, 06:23:05 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 31
166
or is the base ISO amplification factor calculated by the camera manufacturer so that the exposure comes out right.

Yes, the amount of gain applied to the signal is targeted at a net brightness according to ISO setting, all else being equal. The smaller the sensor, the more gain.

See neuro's post here:

The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't.  Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal.  ISO is a standard (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness.  How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger?  More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise.  Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree.  Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF.

167
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:35:07 AM »
Dilbert, Canon Rumors is a Canon equipment related webseite and forum. Who cares about Nikon?!

Care to take a gander at the sub forum you're in?

Yes, I have seen the subforum. It would be a prefect place to speak about things like Sigma lenses or Manfrotto tripods. But Nikon gear normally doesn't fit on a Canon camera. Endless discussion about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras doesn't help anyone shooting with Canon cameras and lenses.

It's the perfect place to discuss anything other than Canon.
Here's the description of the forum: "Nikon, Leica, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest go here." While endless discussions about Sony sensors in Nikon cameras may not *help* canon users, it's certainly interesting, and having the forum keeps users posting here rather than spreading out to a nikon site for nikon and a leica site for leica and a sigma site for sigma, etc. It's a canon-centric website, but that isn't to the exclusion of non-canon stuff.

168
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 02, 2014, 12:59:41 PM »
Lets see. The trade off is 1 stop of ISO for sharp across the frame.

But wait, I thought:

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.

Guess not.

Personally, I'll probably buy this lens. Seems like a bargain for shots where I control the lighting.

169
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: July 02, 2014, 11:01:51 AM »
I place an order with B&H on May 24 and have gotten two emails saying it's back ordered.

I ordered on May 5 and got the same two emails. I have since disabled the email blast in order to prevent the excitement-at-email-from-BH-followed-by-disappointment-at-what-it-says effect.

170
Photography Technique / Re: Shallow DOF vs lighting
« on: June 26, 2014, 02:12:37 PM »
You know, sitting in our hospital room watching my newborn daughter struggle to live it really helps to put in perspective life...

heavy.

Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. I hope you'll find a way to help her.

171
Photography Technique / Re: Shallow DOF vs lighting
« on: June 26, 2014, 01:30:11 PM »
Hi all, my first post at canonrumours!

For portraits where you have time to mess around a bit, if you had to pick between shallow DOF or off camera lighting, which would you choose?


Don't choose; use high-speed sync or ND filters to allow wide apertures with off camera lighting.

172
Car makers are a stagnant market with very little change from year to year.... mostly cosmetic changes. No real surprises anywhere... As a point in case, with pickup trucks the big thing this year is GM with a step in the corner of the bumper.... that's it!

Or Ford's 700 pound reduction in weight going from steel to aluminum.

Or how about the Toyota Hybrid System announcements, fuel cell vehicle announcements, or other maker's (including Tesla) battery electric vehicle announcements?  Those are hardly "stagnant".
I stand corrected!

The VW XL1 is pretty amazing too. 300+ mpg. It's so efficient the oil dependant USA government have banned it from sale.

How did they find the time to do that what with all the chem-trailing and 9/11 orchestrating?

173
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 23, 2014, 09:53:44 AM »
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.

Right? I can't quite grasp the notion that they're competing interests.

Do I sometimes stumble into a great image? Sure. Couple weeks back shooting a model on the beach under harsh sunlight, I either overshot or killed the batteries in my flash (don't recall which), and I got a really cool quasi-silhouette with a deep blue hue and gorgeous edge highlights on her shoulders and knees.

So yah, sometimes when you don't get the shot, you still get the shot. As a hard and fast rule, however, if you don't get the image you set out for, the quality is insignificant.

174
EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX2 5D4 to be announced in January/ February 2015
« on: June 22, 2014, 05:05:16 PM »
1DX2? That would be a stupid name (assuming my recollection is correct that the X was to recognize the 10th anniversary of the 1D).

175
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 21, 2014, 10:30:08 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.

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.

176
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 08:23:14 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).

No. As I said, everything else is a compromise in one form or another. Maybe you and others don't quite understand that.


So far as I know, everyone shoots at the lowest ISO possible in order to get the shot.

You are the one who seems to misunderstand. Everything is a compromise or, better stated: a trade. This includes sensitivity. The totality of exposure settings depends on the goal. ISO100 (or whatever the lowest native setting is) may have a wider dynamic range and SNR than a higher sensitivity, but you're sacrificing either DOF or stop motion. 15 stops of a blurry bird is not better IQ than 8 stops of a stopped one.

Yes, most people (ETTR being an exception) shoot at the lowest ISO possible to get the shot. It is getting the shot which is paramount.

What you said was "always uses raw files at ISO 100..." Always shooting at ISO 100 and using the lowest possible ISO are not equivalent statements.

177
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 02:14:19 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.


For once you've got something right ! Bravo !




(assuming you are referring to shooting subjects that do not move..............

in good light.........

before 2005......)

That's all anyone who focuses on image quality shoots. Of course, they also only shoot medium format, so why they are way up at 100ISO is a mystery.

178
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:59:13 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).

179
I suppose you have to take that $1500 to $3000 and subtract the costs of R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and surely plenty of other costs I'm not thinking about at the moment. Looks pretty bleak pretty quickly.

...management, NRE, testing, overhead, packaging, shipping, customer support, etc.

180
Instead, you'll suggest (oddly since you have zero information to go on regarding how I choose glass) that I either don't care about color or image quality ("I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.") or that I am somehow incapable of learning a concept ("If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you). I prefer to speak plainly.

At some point you were unwilling to even consider my opinions, but simply followed that of the crowd. This situation seems to have changed. You still don't have to agree with me on anything, everything and this.  ;)

I think you're confusing my questioning your intent or reasoning with an unwillingness to consider your opinions. Really, if I was so unwilling, I wouldn't bother engaging.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 31