September 20, 2014, 04:09:10 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 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29
166
None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.

Obviously they are not wasted. A great many people shoot primes designed for 135 format image circles on smaller platforms (APS-H and -C). But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?




There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.


This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.

167
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 09, 2014, 10:02:43 AM »
Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

Get a bigger flash :)
LOL! I'd love me something like that :P

168
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 08, 2014, 10:46:58 AM »
I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much.

I disagree. You do get it

At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

169
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: June 05, 2014, 04:12:36 PM »
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?

170
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 03:04:36 PM »
Canon will need more titanium
Beryllium!
I'm sorry for my lapse in affordability, err, I mean times, but beryllium???  What is this the 1990s?  Graphene is what we all want  ;).

haha, at least now we have flat lenses from a decade ago. :)

I'm not sure they've really figured out how to make solid geometry from graphene yet, but if they have then yah, bring it on!  600mm lens with a barrel a few atoms thick :))

171
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 01:40:20 PM »
Canon will need more titanium

What is this, the 1980s?

Beryllium! Two-and-a-half times as stiff, 40% as heavy.

Just don't drop it, but it's a lens, so you already knew that :)

172
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:40:25 PM »
If Canon SOME HOW ::) can reduce the current 400mm f2.8 IS II weight down to 300mm f2.8 IS II - that would be AWESOME.

They could, and yes, it would be AWE$OME.

173
Lenses / Re: Tamron SP 150-600 f/5-6.3 VC Availability
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:38:33 PM »
I would have though almost everybody would have the same answer as me: the 24-105mm L! I wasn't blown away with it; having used a good 17-55mm on crop for a while before that lens. But my second L: the 70-200mm L ii really showed me the light.


I'm guessing this was intended to go here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21186.0

I find that sometimes when you are in a thread when you log into the site, it forwards you to the next thread from the login screen rather than returning you to the appropriate thread.

174
Lenses / Re: Need a 600mm. Don't want to pay for one
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:45:33 AM »
    600mm for Zoo?? IMHO, 600mm is too long and minimum focusing distance is too long for Zoo unless the animals in your Zoo is kept very far away...

I agree that it's probably too long for a "animals in cages directly adjacent to walkways" style zoo. For the zoo I frequent, 600mm would be very beneficial (hence being on the backorder list for the Tamron, which is the best option in the price range I can justify)

175
But good lenses don't make a system either.

Correct, it is a pool of resources which make a system. On the subject of IQ, flashes and all that can generally be neglected since all that is strictly needed to produce a photograph are 1) a camera and 2) a lens.

Again, ignoring weirdly weighted scores, 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.


So, while the sensor Nikon sources for the D800/E/S is undeniably more capable than that Canon builds for the 5D3 (both cameras representing the highest resolution offering from both makes), the lenses for the Nikon are, on average, undeniably poorer performing than those for the Canon.

Within its system, Nikon doesn't yet offer a wide variety of lenses that are a match for its highest resolution body.

Within its system, Canon does offers a wide variety of lenses that are at least good enough for its highest resolution body. Whether they're good enough for a 50% pixel increase has yet to be determined. If and when Canon makes the business decision to enter the higher-res market (and I suspect their lens refresh is a milestone in that direction) we shall see.

Assuming canon releases a 35+ MP body and the lenses resolve that well, it will trounce the D800 in detail. Canon fans will trumpet. Nikon fans will likely say "yah but you need to spend $20,000 for a variety of series II lenses for it." I'll sit back with 23MP and be glad I don't need a metric ton of flash memory and a supercomputer to process it all.

176
The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.

It's a business decision.

So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?

Their market analysis, likely.


To those chucking Moore's Law around ... yes, possibly the DiG!C architecture can handle the data, but at what cost in terms of power consumption and thermal management? Both these factors can negatively impact on the actual use of the chips ... which leads to the same conclusion.

As has been noted multiple times, canon already churns through 18MPx2 @ 12-14FPS in a two year old body. Clearly processing a 36MP image is NOT beyond their past architecture, so assuming that it's beyond their future architecture is pretty ridiculous.

Canon is very calculating. They won't bring a high dollar camera to the market until a) their infrastructure (lenses, primarily, and I suspect they're there now) is ready, and b) the market can support the investment.

177
What about video?
The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second…

Obviously the setup of dual DiG!C 5+ processors with an additional DiG!C 4 clapping hands is sufficient regarding the 1DX and 1DC cameras. That is not the issue. The issue in question is whether this setup is sufficient for what the future brings ...

Why is that the question? I still can't quite get why you are evidently assuming that digic5+ is the best core canon can make. The issue in question is whether what the future brings is sufficient for what the future brings, not whether what they released 2 years ago is.

I never said or implied DIGIC 5+ is the best they can make

I was replying to Sella ;)

178
Who says they aren't?

I think the noise (haha) over a stop or two of additional shadow recovery is fairly inconsequential to canon.

Would it be cool for them to bring in 24-bit ADC? Yah sure, but at the end of the day, most people look at screens with maybe 8 stops of DR, or prints with less. When the recording device is already capturing significantly more range than the end product is capable of displaying, photographers still need to employ methods to compress the DR of a scene, either before it hits the film/sensor (nd filters, lighting techniques, etc), or before it hits the print (exposure stacking, etc).

Having more information to work with when we enter post would be welcome, but the number of instances in which someone wants to show the words on a newspaper under a picnic table in broad daylight as well as the details of the clouds in the sky above it are pretty rare.

That said, I also welcome DR improvements because of what it means for noise.

179
What about video?
The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second…

Obviously the setup of dual DiG!C 5+ processors with an additional DiG!C 4 clapping hands is sufficient regarding the 1DX and 1DC cameras. That is not the issue. The issue in question is whether this setup is sufficient for what the future brings ...

Why is that the question? I still can't quite get why you are evidently assuming that digic5+ is the best core canon can make. The issue in question is whether what the future brings is sufficient for what the future brings, not whether what they released 2 years ago is.

180
If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.

True, and then I would have been proven wrong. So that is why I am very interested to see what Canon puts inside the upcoming 7D2 camera.

As I recall, they didn't develop a new processor for the 7D, but rather used the same configuration as the 1D4. So maybe a new 7D would use the same config as the current pro sports model (dual digic 5+). However, those cameras came out really close to one another so that could have simplified the decision.

They may want to use a 7D as a test bed for new tech, or they may want to use the economy of scale and leverage of the existing production infrastructure.

In any case, my suspicion is that getting a capable core is the lowest hanging fruit in the higher resolution tree. Developing a line of great lenses is the biggest hurdle, and they've crossed it. The sensor unit is somewhere in the middle, and that's the biggest question in my mind from a tech standpoint, whereas the market is the overarching driver in all of this (if they don't think they can sell sufficient higher res cameras, they won't bother making them).

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29