October 23, 2014, 04:23:22 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 30
166
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).

167
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.

168
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.

169
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.

170
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).

171
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.

172
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.

173
In other words, not      usefulness on APS-C formats      corner quality      color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!

Your question was: "What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?" Therefore I did not mention the current attributes of L-lenses, because you specifically asked for what it was that I couldn't already get from using EF L-lenses and thus, for instance, good colour rendition and excellent corner quality are implied by default.

Fair enough. I was still in the mindset of the mis-worded question and subsequent answer.

And, even though I most definitely am "preposterously arrogant", I still won't stoop so low as to slap derogatory labels on you.

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.

174
...and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?
...calculate what is 1% (the figure you so randomly plucked from others' posts)

Actually, the number he suggests is far less than 1%. He didn't pluck it from anywhere, he wrote it as to mean vanishingly small.


Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:
What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).

And sure, I'll bite. I may not understand, although I don't know whether that's a reflection on me or on your ability to explain things.

Initially, I do not understand, but I have no qualms about admitting such.

Suggested advantage of EF-S L over EF L: A shorter back focas distance can eliminate retrofocal designs.

Don't retrofocal designs increase the back focus distance? How does reducing the back focus distance eliminate the need to increase the back focus distance? If the goal is a shorter back focus distance, then you are talking telephoto, not retrofocal, right? Maybe not.

175
Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

You are moving the goalposts, but what the hey ... I'll walk right into it, so's you-know-who can have a giggle.

That's not "moving the goalposts." I don't have any goalposts; I'm just asking a question about what you want. It was a typo.

An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).

In other words, not      usefulness on APS-C formats      corner quality      color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!

176
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

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.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

The first two are likely, the third... I don't know.

Here's a question, though: All else being equal, would a smaller (EF-S) image circle have equivalent corner performance on APS-C as a larger (EF) image circle has on 135 format? Put another way, is the difficulty in maintaining corner quality a function of size, or is it merely a function of approaching the perimeter of the elements? It may be a little of both, but I lean tend towards the latter not being insignificant given how TS-E lenses (which necessarily have larger image circles) perform in the neutral position (pretty damn good edge to edge).

And so, perhaps an EF-S L Prime would be less desirable than an EF L Prime on APS-C for that particular trait (you know, the one after EF lenses were useless but before color became the important quality).

177
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

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.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

178
... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

Exactly why I wanted Canon to make EF-S L-primes.

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

179
^^ Can't you export sidecar xml files to preserve your work?

180
Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.

You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?

What you're doing seems more like suggesting a Ferrari is a waste of money because you can't hear the stereo over the engine noise... :P

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 30