September 02, 2014, 01:22:14 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 189
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:21:58 AM »
...
As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda.

Once a test is done, it doesn't need to be repeated.

Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.

There is no need for repeated tests or demonstrations or examples.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:14:01 AM »
The Nikon D810 is better than the Canon 5DIII in every respect. 

That's the second time you've made that ridiculous claim.  Let's start with some really, really simple questions.

  • How is the D810's 5 frames per second better than the 5DIII's 6 frames per second?

Oh, and I hope your answer to that first point won't foolishly invoke the higher frame rate in DX mode, unless you're prepared to also explain how using only 43% of the sensor area is better than using the whole thing.

Why is throwing away 43% of the sensor area a problem when people can and do crop down that much or more?

18
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:04:40 AM »
I gotta jump in here.  Your request would be completely pointless.  I have to ask:
-What is the purpose for you wanting a handheld test?

It's always nice to meet people for whom the theoretical best possible results are practically, routinely achieved.  From your question, I assume 100% of your shots are taken from the sturdiest possible tripod. 

My auto manufacturer put a sticker on my car that said it achieves 26 mpg highway.  Our road trip average is closer to 20 mpg.  Our other car is rated for 36 mpg highway, and delivers ~34 mpg.  Same EPA-mandated rating system, same driver, both cars maintained per recommendations, etc.   Yet the real-world vs. spec'd performance differential is different.

The issue is the claim that smaller pixels deliver higher resolution that is predicted by the difference in pixel sizes.  The point is that in real world use, smaller pixels don't deliver as differentially higher resolution as pixel size alone would predict.

They do when there is no AA filter between the lens and sensor.

19
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:28:08 PM »
I'm going to wait until the 24-105/3.5-5.6 is reviewed before passing judgement on it.

There are rumors to back it up...

MOST importantly being non fixed f-stop length gives Canon's engineers the chance to fix IQ issues (distortion, sharpness) that are present in the current 24-105/f4L. Where it will fit with respect to the 24-105/f4L and the 24-70/f4L in terms of IQ will be interesting. If it has superior IQ to the 24-105/f4L and comparable to that of the 24-70/f4L then I'm selling both of those for this new lens. I don't need/care about wide aperture but I do care about IQ.

Also being non-L suggests that it might hit the market the current 24-105 price (~$600) or less.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 03:28:54 PM »
Okey, let me express myself a bit more clear. Canon is definitely able to make high-res sensors, it also able to make amazing prototypes in lab.

The file quality improvement in lower ISO from 5Dmk2 to 5Dmk3 is negligible, and I really can not find a reason for it. For this reason I have been thinking about jump ship to Nikon or go MF for a while. A camera packed with 2012 funtion and 2007 IQ(1dsmk3) is really disappointing.

I am now almost always use Capture One to convert CR2s just to get the file a bit more retouching friendly.

From what I've read in seemingly dozens of similar debates on here, Canon focused on other things when designing the 5D3 - autofocus and high ISO in particular - because that's what people wanted. I wasn't following things back then, but apparently that's what people were clamouring for - the DR/ultra high resolution/low ISO quality stuff has only come along since then.

Ahem!

The low ISO quality issues have always been there.

The DR disadvantage only since the Exmor sensor started appearing.

Canon only really fixed one thing with the 5D3: AF.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:35:52 PM »
Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.
if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses

actually what you stated is meaningless to 90% of photographers out there. but it only works your direction?

if the vast majority don't need specialized or an excellent ecosystem, they probably don't care about the sensor or what you think is important either.

I do find used markets, support services and general availability to be far more important than the "theory" you have on where  things will be in 2-4 years.

People will want something that gives them a better image than their mobile phone.

The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:39:01 PM »
Alright, time for some concrete evidence. Here is a 5-frame bracketed sequence I took yesterday of a sunflower field at sunset

to be honest, you overpulled anyways compared to that D800 picture, and there's something "wrong" with that D800 one, especially the sunflower to the left of center - AND you're only seeing it as a very small image so you can't tell if / how there is any artifact happening as you blow it up either.  and that sun doesn't look right on his shot either (unless that's a nuclear explosion that just went off)

point is, if you need 10EV of latitude such as this shot, it's always going to be tricky.

But it doesn't need to be - and more to the point, it isn't with a Nikon or Sony camera. So why should it be thus with a Canon camera?

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:51:12 PM »
...
So is this talk about Canon's sensors not being any good the result of some laboratory measurements or is it photography which is about seeing and that includes the finished print whether its on a wall or a page (but please, not on a computer screen, people).
So, please, Dilbert, what in the real world are you referring to when you criticize the Canon sensors?
And thank you again.

Look for posts from jrista. He posted some images (on CR) recently of shadow noise and detail from the D800 and 5DIII. Tell me if you need any more convincing after you've found that post.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:49:03 PM »
Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.
if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:36:20 PM »
nothing has really been innovative in camera systems for the last 30+ years.

Here we go again - digital sensors, image stabilization, USM focusing, predictive servo autofocus, diffractive optics, zooms that are outstanding optically, video, on-sensor phase-detection AF.

Nothing innovative?

I think rrcphoto meant his comments to be ironic.........

not really. i would love a camera company to do something totally radical.  take a playbook out of thom hogan's thoughts on camera systems and surrounding ecosystems.

However I'm surprised people expect this level of "innovation" and think canon's doing nothing though - what more can they do that they haven't done already?

Surprise us.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:59:20 PM »
Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:58:05 PM »
So, why the heck should I keep waiting, when a D810 is right there, it already has everything I need, and is for sale on the market today?

Because you might only have to wait two weeks or so to see what Canon has been up to lately.  At least that might give a clue as to future directions.

If you exclude the "OMG, 1080p in the 5DII" and look at the very slow evolution of Canon's DSLRs then it is pretty easy to accurately guess where Canon will go next...

i.e. not very far.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:56:45 PM »
...
So, why the heck should I keep waiting, when a D810 is right there, it already has everything I need, and is for sale on the market today? I don't like Nikon ergonomics, but I could solve my landscape photography problem today if I wanted to. I'd prefer to have a high DR Canon camera, but one simply does not exist, and no one has the first bleeding clue as to when it might potentially exist. So, I'm done waiting. I think everyone else who has been waiting and really wants more DR should stop waiting as well. :P

I'm also thinking that maybe a Sony A7r plus lens Metabones Mark III could do the trick.

That gives me a foot hold in the mirrorless market and I don't have to fully commit to Sony (i.e. buy lenses.)

The only part I'd be concerned with is the ability of the A7r to hold a long/heavy lens on a tripod.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:29:53 AM »
Very disappointing specs after so long a wait. IMO, minor evolutionary improvements.

That is how Canon operates. Look at their product development over the last 11 years and you'll see the same minor increments from one model to the next. If you're looking for revolutionary development then you've bought into the wrong camera system/brand.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:23:28 AM »
...Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it?

...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.

Here's the thing...Canon's sensors are good enough.  Good enough to produce stunning images.  Good enough to produce award-winning images.  Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years. 

The fact that they aren't good enough for you and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'.

Well jrista is also now on that list. So it would seem that the list of people that it's not good enough is growing.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 189