September 02, 2014, 02:07:38 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 - meli

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
1
...
Here are A4 and A3 printouts resolutions at fine 720dpi and superfine 1440dpi
...
  So from above it is clear that in fact even most Buyer sensor MF cameras can not over perform standard quality 720dpi A4 printing resolution.
...
I dont think you understand what those 720dpi & 1440dpi means

2
You should really have a look at the 18-35 1.8 Sigma, that lens will make you happy.

3
Susceptible to eczema outbursts I guess?

4
Lenses / Re: DxO ... a little help please!
« on: February 13, 2014, 01:52:00 PM »
... all this got me thinking that for a company like DxO that is capable/equipped to conduct sophisticated lens/sensor tests, what stops them from comparing lenses/sensors at 10 different ISO measurements and in 10 different conditions with 10 different subject movements and then come up with scores in a chart, so people can come to a more informed conclusion :-\
...and with 10 different samples of the same camera/lens picked with appropriate criteria.
They probably could, but they wont. What you wish takes time, personnel, and money. And all this to run a free service. That doesnt fly really well.
Quote
For example they could, in controlled environment, throw a ball and see how well the camera/lens can auto focus at various apertures and then come up with several scores for sharpness ...
Dxo doesnt do AF. Its a whole other beast and frankly its difficult to come up with an objective/exhaustive suite of lab/field AF tests.

5
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 09, 2014, 06:41:34 PM »
Nope. In the jpg the values for face & arm are already @ 252+ and actually parts of his nose and lips are already clipped; if you think you could add another 2.5stops and be able with your LR 4+ to bring'em back then damn, pls torrent us your LR cause it must be some pretty special sauce ;D
Note that you're only looking at the JPEG. The RAW version would have significantly more highlight data than what is shown in the rendered JPEG. I've dealt with this countless times with clouds that appeared to be blown out in the JPEG preview but actually weren't in the RAW version... especially with 5D3 RAW files.

Oh no doubt you might have been able to salvage something from this raw, but you claimed you could salvage it even with an additional 2.5stops on top.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 09, 2014, 05:59:10 PM »

Lightroom 4+ would have no problem recovering highlights even if this scene were 2.5 stops brighter.

Nope. In the jpg the values for face & arm are already @ 252+ and actually parts of his nose and lips are already clipped; if you think you could add another 2.5stops and be able with your LR 4+ to bring'em back then damn, pls torrent us your LR cause it must be some pretty special sauce ;D

Who said again that Canon doesn't need more dynamic range :-p ?
Thats why i'm a dual camper  ;D

@OP, you should bump up iso and sync

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII - too grainy or not?
« on: February 09, 2014, 02:27:18 PM »
This is a classic example of underexposure. Take a look at the histogram in Lightroom and notice how most of it is bunched up on the left side. You want the histogram to be about 2.5-3 stops more to the right. You have some options..

Nope. This is not a classic example of underexposure and it would be silly to overexposure by 2.5-3 stops this particular scene since the subject's highlights are already bordering on overexposure; doing so would result in no noise in the bg and a white hot blob in the center

8
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe site hacked
« on: October 06, 2013, 08:27:18 AM »
 It appears that the breach of Adobe‚Äôs data occurred in early August of this year but it is possible that the breach was ongoing earlier.

http://gigaom.com/2013/10/04/adobe-source-code-breech-its-bad-real-bad/

Given that the source code is out, it might be a really good idea to stop using adobe's pdf reader.

The irony is that someone using pirated photoshop is actually safer than someone on the cloud.

9
Lenses / Re: Best 35mm wide open????
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:12:37 AM »
Im in the market for a 35mm for my 5DMK3.. Out of the option which is best wide open for nice bokeh??

You are going to get quit a few Sigma suggestions. This is normal, it is a popular lens that many can afford.
Pride in ownership will generate fanfare. Many answers come from what they own, not what may be best.

But the answer to your question the Zeiss 35mm F/1.4 is the best. Is it $1000 better than the L or the Sig? It would be to me, but not to most people.


Ah yes, confirmation bias, you should see how strong it is with those that think that since they bought the most expensive toy then it must be surely the "best".

10
Lenses / Re: the future of 1.2 L lenses ?
« on: September 20, 2013, 12:46:52 PM »
There are also other issues related to fast lenses and bayer sensors, CA for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6147351879/#

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why CSI agents used only Nikon Cameras ?
« on: September 16, 2013, 03:36:45 PM »
I think I remember that in Wire, cops were using nikon for a couple of seasons and then switched to Canon.

12
Technical Support / Re: Why higher end camera underexposes images?
« on: September 16, 2013, 02:57:25 PM »
P.S.
Yes Nikon D4 has a similar adjustment as in the 1DX AE Microadjustment

I think every nikon from d7k on has it, separate for each mode too (spot /matrix /cw).

13
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 04:38:06 PM »
The 70D...has not improved and is slightly worse than the 9 year old 20D. 

Oh, I think it's a little better.  I hope your analysis really was quick, because I'd hate to think you wasted even more time.  Per-pixel SNR?  Funny, I haven't seen that phrase on the display placards at Best Buy or my local camera shop.  I wonder why?  I know...because notwithstanding a minuscule number of DR-obsessed Canon-bashing forum jockeys, no one who buys cameras cares.  The 70D is a massive improvement over the 20D in 99.9999% of ways that matter to people. Canon will sell loads of 70D bodies, quite likely more than the D7100 by a wide margin.

DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors.  You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800.  The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

You keep touting this sales horn since forever and i cant really understand it, "what does X or Y matter when sales show that". Last i checked it was a hardware forum not retail or brokerage. Otherwise, lets dump our 5ds & 1ds cause, you know, rebels are where sales are.
People comment /grind on one particular deficiency of canon's line cause its exactly this, a deficiency. It doesn't make sense counteracting it with "what does it matter the rest of the camera is great" (or worse: oh but look at  the sales...)  Yes, everything else is great, people see that, and that makes it all the more obvious that a camera like 5d3 with d600's sensor would be the perfect camera. 90% of the users maybe don't mind but 10% does cause canon is trailing everybody else in this field, and its becoming obvious that its either arrogance or inability rather than decision.
And yes, since sensor isn't everything thats why people bitch about, otherwise they would just jump ship.

look at this:
Quote
DxOMark measures sensors, but people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors.  You can rehash DxOMark data until hell freezes over, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has been outselling Nikon for years, nor the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800.  The obvious conclusion is that 'better' sensors (where 'better' is defined as low ISO DR) have not helped Nikon or Sony sell more cameras.

What does this mean? That since Canon has been outselling Nikon then there is no point arguing about Canon ineficiency to improve low iso for the last decade? That doesn't make sense.
And btw, your 'obvious' conclusion isn't really that obvious or a conclusion. Sensors did help Nikon sales, hardware failures didnt.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 29, 2013, 08:46:35 AM »
I was already on FF when 7d came out but through the years i had a chance to review files from assistants, friends & gfs from either 7d 60d or d7000 (have to find one with a pentax now  ;D ).
The IQ difference isn't that tiny really. First you can get really nice files out of those sony sensors below 400. You can get FF quality easily, whereas 7d really has noise all over the spectrum.

I own a 7D and have shot tens of thousands of frames with it and made several hundred 16x20" prints. And you're wrong.
Perhaps you have lower standards or you just dont care, in my case i've always seen noise from that 18mp sensor even at base iso.

I've also in the past taken the time to put up 100% crop tests from FF and APS-C, Canon and Nikon bodies to see if FF or Nikon fanboys could reliably tell me which was which. They always fail, but it also always ends up a waste of my time since they continue to spout their nonsense no matter how many times they fail.
I bet you liked also that test between iphone & dslr.
Explain to me though, do you believe that in some cases with the right subject, under some circumstances, the output from any dslr might be indinstiguisable from another, or do you maintain that this is the case generally?
If its the 1st one then congratulations Captain Obvious you won the party hat, if its the 2nd then by all means, please do create a separate thread and post your thesis about how dslrs have the same output regardless brand or format, im sure it 'll be highly entertaining.

You can see a  quantitative difference with local adjustments of about 1-2 stops and what happens to color and noise.

Sure you can...when you turn off NR on one camera and not the other.
You got me there, silly me.

Quote
Quote
Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.

Sure you can. You can also leave the lens cap on and get perfect images, or so a Nikon fan told me.
Yep sure you can and hyperboles wont help your case.

Quote
"ISOless"...priceless...thanks for the laugh.
Indeed isoless and no doubt, with the proper amount of ignorance, its laughable and "priceless". Take care.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 28, 2013, 07:05:56 PM »
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this and maybe I'm missing something here, but when I compare the D7100 to the 70D and 7D on the graphs there doesn't seem to be all that much difference.

I admit I'm not a dynamic range freak, and I'm more interested in ISO performance, but it doesn't seem like there is any real world difference between the Nikon and Canon sensors.

There's a small real world difference in terms of IQ when you have to dig really deep into the shadows. It's blown up into a huge difference by...

* Shooting a wall in the dark.
* Shoving the exposure slider to +5 EV.
* Turning off all NR on the Canon sample.

If you normally shoot this way, Nikon is your first choice.

I was already on FF when 7d came out but through the years i had a chance to review files from assistants, friends & gfs from either 7d 60d or d7000 (have to find one with a pentax now  ;D ).
The IQ difference isn't that tiny really. First you can get really nice files out of those sony sensors below 400. You can get FF quality easily, whereas 7d really has noise all over the spectrum. You can see a  quantitative difference with local adjustments of about 1-2 stops and what happens to color and noise.
Obviously you can see a massive difference if you want to salvage shoots where flash or strobes didnt fire; basically those sony sensors are isoless, you could push an underexposed iso100 all the way to 3200 and there isnt much difference from a native 3200, plus the tonality will be actually greater.
From someone coming from compacts or cameraphones the difference is nonexistent but from someone who wants too squeeze every possible drop of quality from an apsc sensors, then you'll find canon isnt your best bet.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11