October 21, 2014, 01:24:56 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 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 30
91
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:17:24 PM »
and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality.

That's not what he was getting at. He's saying (I believe) they already have a finer process, and citing DPAF as proof, even though they currently are using it for something other than IQ.

92
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 01:20:18 PM »
The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.

I have no experience with soNikon (my Nikon doesn't have a Sony sensor). I do however have experience with Canon and Sony. My Sony (A7R) doesn't provide substantially better images than my Canon cameras. It simply doesn't. There are some cases where I may wish to edit shadows and I can do so with less difficulty using the A7R, but the difference isn't as substantial as you make it out to be. Perhaps some of that is due to the lossy RAW format of the Sony, but I doubt it. Perhaps that has to do with what I'm shooting or how I shoot it.

How do your Sony and SoNikon images compare to your Canon images?

Push comes to shove, if someone calls me up and asks "hey do you want to go shooting" or "hey can you come shoot something for me," the camera I'll grab is the 5D3, not the A7R. YMMV.

93
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:19:31 AM »
snip

You of course are correct. I was fixating on the number of possible entries, not the entries themselves. This is why we don't drink and post. Carry on.

94
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:11:40 AM »

0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity?  ???



16,384 = 2^14.

The lowest value the sensor records, however, isn't 0.

It's 2^0. Were it zero, any increase would be infinite on a percentage basis.

But it isn't.

1-2-4-8-...2^bitdepth

The range is from 0 to (2^N)-1
it is 0 to 16383

Not from a digital logic standpoint. Call it (2^N)-526.363 in decimal if you like, but doing math based on the digital data means you start at 1.

95
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:58:10 PM »
What happens when you divide any number by zero? What happens when you take the logarithm of zero or infinity?

What happens? You evaluate the limit, per LHospital. We don't have that case here, though.

0-16384 (14 bit ADC) is infinity?  ???

16,384 = 2^14.

The lowest value the sensor records, however, isn't 0.

It's 2^0. Were it zero, any increase would be infinite on a percentage basis.

But it isn't.

1-2-4-8-...2^bitdepth

96
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 25, 2014, 10:01:50 PM »
Yah, I know. It's not crippled, it just pre-dated faster SD.

Not even close.

  • March 2010: UHS-I spec released.
  • September 2010: First UHS-I flash cards shipped.
  • March 2012: Canon 5D Mark III shipped

UHS-I had been final for two years when the 5D Mark III shipped, and UHS-I cards had been available on the market for a year and a half before the 5D Mark III shipped.

Not supporting UHS-II is justifiable, as the cards didn't hit the market until April of this year.  But not supporting UHS-I?  That's corner cutting at its finest.

I am presuming the associated circuitry was finalised in advance of UHS because I don't see how intentionally leaving it off would benefit them. I could obviously be wrong, but I can not come up with a scenario where the program manager made a decision to go with a slow secondary slot when a better option was viable and cost effective. I understand the notion of crippling, but that seems like a silly way to do it. The second card is nice but not strictly necessary. If you want the fastest performance, pull the SD. The 5D3 demographic isn't going to buy a 1dx due to a slow secondary slot, nor is 1dx demographic going to buy a 5d3 instead had it a faster secondary slot. Ergo I have to assume a more practical reason, such as timing.

97
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:47:13 PM »
The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.

er... what? The tripod holds the lens, the lens holds the camera.

98
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:18:57 PM »
looks pretty decent to me
if there a some deals or sale down the road after the bleeding edge stampede dies off i might pick one up and leave it stuck on the tamron 150-600


+1

99
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:20:37 PM »
3kramd5 - I shoot JPEG with the various adjustments and RAW in the hope that I've got something to work with if I cock up.  Also, as you are probably aware, the SD card slot is crippled and it's faster to save JPEGs to SD.

Yah, I know. It's not crippled, it just pre-dated faster SD. I personally haven't run into buffer issues (I shoot RAW to both cards), but I don't burst often, so perhaps that's why.

Personally, I do a lot of things out of ease, so with that in mind:

Once you're out of the field, if you haven't have a failure in the CF card, do you keep the JPEGs?

If so... why? :P

If not, then just keep them on the SD card as you delete from CF. They're small enough relative to RAW that you aren't likely to fill a card with them with the balance of space freed by deleting RAWs, right? How big is the best quality JPEG relative to RAW? Let's assume they are 66% as big. Suppose you can fit 99 JPEGs or 66 RAWs. You'd have to delete and re-shoot literally 1/2 of your RAW files (that is, shoot 66, delete 33, and shoot 33 more) before filling the card with JPEGs. And even if you would fill a card, just get an extra SD; it's cheap, and then you never have to think about synchronizing your deletions. Just replace the SD when it gets close to capacity so you don't fill it at an inopportune moment :)

It is a little weird that canon basically handcuffs us when it comes to accessing files on the secondary card. Sure, you can change the playback setting, but that's a PITA. But while weird, it's never been problematic to me.

100
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII dual cards
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:10:08 PM »
I don't believe so. You delete from whichever card you have selected for playback.

As an aside, if you are using dual cards for backup, shouldn't you have both record the same format? JPEG isn't really a backup to RAW, it's a compromised replacement. That way, you could delete whatever you want in the field, and never have to even remove the backup card from the camera as long as you don't have a failure with the primary (or accidentally delete the wrong image).

101
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D replacement: What is a "fine-detail" sensor
« on: August 23, 2014, 10:20:37 PM »
Fine detail sounds awfully lot like a euphemism for high resolution (eg 20MP APS-C)

103
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma and Tamron OS/VC quirks
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:42:39 PM »
Hi,
I now own two third party stabilized lenses, the sigma 70-200 2.8 EX (there are a lot of letters and I always forget them) and the tamron 150-600. I've noticed a quirk they both exhibit that none of my canon IS lenses do: when the stabilizer engages, the frame tilts down what visually feels like about 5-10°. With the 70-200, it's not that bad, but at 600mm with the tamron, 10° is a lot.

Has anyone else noticed that kind of this happening? What's the explanation? Misalignment in the stabilizing optic? Maybe I'll shoot a video if nobody can picture what I'm seeing.
    My tamron 150-600mm will usually just "jump" (meaning that it'll return to the initially aiming point) a bit when IS is activated... sometime if the IS is not activated for a long time, the frame will move down a bit, but still very close to my AF point... at 600mm, the distance it move is around the size of my 6D centre AF point... not very much... my handshake is easily 10 times worst than that...  ha ha ha :-P

   Have a nice day.

Haha, yah hand shake is much worse. It's easy to compensate for, but it just seemed... quirky.

My 150-600 doesn't have that problem or indeed any that others have reported.  My former 100-400L used to drift in IS.

Interesting. Maybe it's just a manufacturing tolerance issue if yours doesn't do it.

104
Third Party Manufacturers / Sigma and Tamron OS/VC quirks
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:35:02 AM »
I now own two third party stabilized lenses, the sigma 70-200 2.8 EX (there are a lot of letters and I always forget them) and the tamron 150-600. I've noticed a quirk they both exhibit that none of my canon IS lenses do: when the stabilizer engages, the frame tilts down what visually feels like about 5-10°. With the 70-200, it's not that bad, but at 600mm with the tamron, 10° is a lot.

Has anyone else noticed that kind of this happening? What's the explanation? Misalignment in the stabilizing optic? Maybe I'll shoot a video if nobody can picture what I'm seeing.

105
Software & Accessories / Re: Aluminum vs. Carbon Fiber?
« on: August 21, 2014, 03:06:33 PM »
And of course not all Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Plastics are the same.

Nor are all aluminum alloys, but yes, there is certainly more variability in composites (fibers and resin systems or prepreg used, curing times/temperatures/pressures, layup, etc).

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 30