July 24, 2014, 02:37:11 PM

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 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 177
1501

What gives a lens its "reach" is the pixel density, not the sensor format. A 300mm lens on a 20D will give you almost the same "reach" as on a 5D Mark II/III/1Ds3.


Yep - perhaps you need to tell the sports pros that they have been using the wrong sensors for the last 10 years, never mind the wrong manufacturers cameras.

I think that the professional sports photographers, etc, all use whatever works the best and that the choice of sensor is either irrelevant or of secondary concern. If Canon never had APS-H, I doubt very much that there would be more or less professionals using Canon because of that. Similarly, the 1D series could have had 1.4 or 1.2 or 1.5 crop and they'd still have used it.

So we are in agreement - Canon made the best camera they could and the pro used it. I would guess then that the sensor that Canon chose was the one they knew would deliver what was needed. So by inference the APS-H sensor was the best sensor to sports/action.

... that Canon could manufacture in both quantity and cost effectiveness in order to deliver the 1D series camera at its price point.

If 10 years ago Canon had the machinery it does today then APS-H would never have existed.

Quote
IMO therefore would make sense therefore that the APS-H would make perfect sense for a super sports camera to come in above the 7D - tried tested and proven over the last 10 years and with the R&D done to increase the mps well above 36mps.

*yawn* if you keep repeating this to yourself over and over, I imagine that you'll convince yourself that it is true. Too bad that Canon seems to believe that sports photographers would prefer full frame sensors. I wonder why Canon thinks that? Could it be because that's what the sports photographers that Canon talks to and listens to want?

There's a thread elsewhere about some Euro football shooter that is using the 1DX. Does he complain anywhere about no longer having a 1.3x crop? No. All he cares about is the autofocus performance and frame rate. Wonder of wonders.

1502

What gives a lens its "reach" is the pixel density, not the sensor format. A 300mm lens on a 20D will give you almost the same "reach" as on a 5D Mark II/III/1Ds3.


Yep - perhaps you need to tell the sports pros that they have been using the wrong sensors for the last 10 years, never mind the wrong manufacturers cameras.

I think that the professional sports photographers, etc, all use whatever works the best and that the choice of sensor is either irrelevant or of secondary concern. If Canon never had APS-H, I doubt very much that there would be more or less professionals using Canon because of that. Similarly, the 1D series could have had 1.4 or 1.2 or 1.5 crop and they'd still have used it.

1503
EOS Bodies - For Stills / 60D is currently the best xxD Canon DSLR?
« on: June 16, 2012, 04:00:40 AM »
Yeah, I know, you'll all hate because it is from DxO but...

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-
side/(appareil1)/663|0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/180|0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/281|0/(brand3)/Canon


The 30D (59) is a touch under the 20D (62) and the 50D (63) is just a wee bit below the 40D (64) but the 60D bests them all. Of course the 7D shouldn't be left out and whilst it scores 5% better than the 60D in low-light ISO, they rate it overall as the same (66). The 7D also bests the 60D in dyanmic range (landscape) but the 60D takes the honors for portrait colour depth (22.2 vs 22).

The other takeaway from this is that both the 30D and 50D were a step down in IQ from their predecessor, so I wonder if the 70D (the next odd-numbered xxD DSLR) will fit that pattern?

1504
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 14-24 f/2.8L [CR2]
« on: June 15, 2012, 10:50:41 PM »
By the way Canon has been pricing new lenses and compared to what the Nikon 14-24 is priced at, I'll eat my camera and film it if it's even close to $1400. I'm expecting no less than $2000.

I'm expecting a lot more than $2000 because in contrast to a midrange zoom like the 24-70, an uwa zoom is a specialist lens - so people wanting this over the 16-35L will know what they want it for and will be ready to pay a lot.

If it's too high, I think I'll just go for a Zeis prime around the 17 to 21mm area. There's not a lot of times that I want to shoot wide but when I do, it is more often that I want something around 20mm and not 24-28.

1505
Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

I guess you cant see how you are contradicting yourself

What gives a lens its "reach" is the pixel density, not the sensor format. A 300mm lens on a 20D will give you almost the same "reach" as on a 5D Mark II/III/1Ds3. The only difference is that the 20D will only show you the very middle part of the image from the lens. Now it might look like the lens has more reach on the 20D because you see a more zoomed in image through the viewfinder, but ultimately that does not determine what gets captured. The image that you see through the viewfinder of the 7D will look approximately the same as that of the 20D so they both appear to have the same "reach" but the captured image is larger because the pixel density on the sensor is higher. Smaller pixels => higher pixel density => more reach. Sensor format size has got nothing to do with it.

...

Now it may be that you still don't grasp that. Ok. Go and read some of the reviews of the D800 and look at what people are able to do with shadows - they can get meaningful detail out of the shadows without introducing any amount of significant noise. You simply cannot do that with any currently available Canon DSLR.

DxO are right and their measurements have been backed up by numerous folks with D800s when working with raw files in Lightroom, ACR, etc. dpreview's results match up with DxO's, you're just misunderstanding all of the data that dpreview are giving you.

Actually what DPReview shows it that the 5D MkIII has better highlight capability than the D800. So while with the D800 you might be able to dig more data out of the shadows it is at the expense of dynamic range on the high end. Dynamic range isn't just on the shadow end, its at the highlight end too. So, while the D800 retains more shadow detail, the 5D MkIII retains more highlight detail, the total EV range of the two cameras is very similar.

I don't know where you get that from. When the maximum tonal range is selected for both cameras, they both peak at about the same point on the highlight side according to dpreview's data.

1506
Everybody talks like Sony/Nikon have some sort of amazing technological advantage over Canon. Except for DXOMark scores there is nothing that shows this. Dispite what DXOMark says tests at DPReview show that the 5D Mk III has more dynamic range than the D800 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

So either Nikon has some really crappy processors that mess up the 2.7 stop advantage that DXOMark says the D800 has, or we should stop quoting, worrying about, or looking at what DXOMark says.


Or dpreview is using JPEGs and not RAW data.

While you're on that dpreview page, make these changes:
Set the "Canon EOS 5D Mark III" to "HTP On"
Set the "Nikon D800" to "ADL Extra High"

This should give you:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - ~33 to ~2
Nikon D800 - ~38 to ~2


The whole point about DXOMark is that they are supposed to be measuring the sensor without all the electronic nannies.

So, yes ADL and HTP can stretch the data to expand the dynamic range, but, DXOMarks claim that the D800s sensor alone has more dynamic range just doesn't hold water.


I think perhaps that you are in the "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" basket.

If the D800 sensor wasn't able to record such a large dynamic range then where would the data come from for the output above where the D800 can reach down to 38? That number isn't achieved with some magic. It is just a different tone curve applied to the raw data for the rendering of the JPEG output. The tone curve is the means by which raw values from the camera's sensor are mapped into the JPEG colour space.

To put it briefly, there are 16,384 possible values for each of red, green and blue in the raw data of current model DSLRs. For JPEG files and your monitor, the computer has to squeeze them into a value between 0 and 255. What the above graphs mean is that the Nikon sensor is able to generate meaningful input across a larger part of that 0-16383 number space than the Canon 5D Mark III can but for a normal JPEG output, a large chunk of the dark tones are simply chopped off as being black. Now with the "active lighting", you can change the way the numbers are mapped and move the black point from (say) 2048 on that 0-16383 scale down to 10 or so. With the Canon sensor, that's not possible as there is no meaningful output from the sensor below a value of 2048.

Now it may be that you still don't grasp that. Ok. Go and read some of the reviews of the D800 and look at what people are able to do with shadows - they can get meaningful detail out of the shadows without introducing any amount of significant noise. You simply cannot do that with any currently available Canon DSLR.

DxO are right and their measurements have been backed up by numerous folks with D800s when working with raw files in Lightroom, ACR, etc. dpreview's results match up with DxO's, you're just misunderstanding all of the data that dpreview are giving you.

1507
APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

... but by that logic, APS-H does not give the same IQ as FF, no?

Quote
APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

Nope.

Even the kids know that bigger is better  8).
So, from a marketing perspective, APS-H has one really major flaw: it's smaller than FF.
And if your camera has a smaller thingy than the competition, you can't charge same/more than the competition.
It's that simple. 

Nikon switched from DX to FX in their pro Dx line because Canon was winning with a bigger thingy in their cameras.
And Canon in turn switched from APS-H to FF in the 1-series because now Nikon had a bigger thingy.

So, despite all the cheerleading, APS-H is out forever. Get it over with :P.

Well, remember the original APS-H spec (Kodak Film) was for a 16X9 aspect ratio. With the same height as APS-C. So, Canon could have a 16X9 APS-H sensor with a mirror that was the same height as an APS-C camera, only wider. So, it would clear EF-S lenses. If they did that, Canon could have an APS-H sensor camera that was compatible with EF-S lenses.

Quit it already, will you?

1508
Everybody talks like Sony/Nikon have some sort of amazing technological advantage over Canon. Except for DXOMark scores there is nothing that shows this. Dispite what DXOMark says tests at DPReview show that the 5D Mk III has more dynamic range than the D800 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

So either Nikon has some really crappy processors that mess up the 2.7 stop advantage that DXOMark says the D800 has, or we should stop quoting, worrying about, or looking at what DXOMark says.


Or dpreview is using JPEGs and not RAW data.

While you're on that dpreview page, make these changes:
Set the "Canon EOS 5D Mark III" to "HTP On"
Set the "Nikon D800" to "ADL Extra High"

This should give you:
Canon EOS 5D Mark II - ~33 to ~2
Nikon D800 - ~38 to ~2

1509
Yes, cropping throws away the benefit of the FF sensor gathering more total light.  I'm saying that if you move closer with the FF camera (or zoom in with a zoom lens) so you're getting the same framing covering the sensor, you'll get better IQ from the FF sensor.  That means there is an inherent advantage to FF, unless you go around shooting everything wider than you need and planning to crop away 60% of all your images.

As a practical matter, I suspect the crop debate, at least in part, boils down to the fact that FF sensors are not likely to emerge with sufficient pixel density to produce IQ equivalent to a high quality crop sensor in distance constrained situations using the same lens, i.e. the same subject distance.  At least not at a cost attractive to those who would be the most likely to benefit from such a camera.   Perhaps the rumored high-MP FF would achieve this performance level I dont' know, but I note that the motivations for FF bodies are generally different from that of the cop bodies, such that to date we've not seen a FF  body that can do this.

I would be surprised if there weren't already FF sensors in existence with the same pixel density as crop sensors today. The problem is manufacturing. With a larger sensor there is also a similar increase in the chance of a flaw in the fabrication process to render the sensor useless. With fewer sensors per slice of silicon than with crop sensors, the requirements for a good yield are much more stringent with full frame sensors. The chance of a flaw during production goes up as the size of the pixels go down and the megapixel count goes up.

Nikon/Sony delivering a 36MP sensor camera for $500 less than the 5D3 also says a lot about the manufacturing processes being used. It may be that Canon have got more catching up to do than we realise.

1510
As a practical matter, I suspect the crop debate, at least in part, boils down to the fact that FF sensors are not likely to emerge with sufficient pixel density to produce IQ equivalent to a high quality crop sensor in distance constrained situations using the same lens, i.e. the same subject distance. 

Surprisingly, when you shoot the same subject at the same distance and crop the FF image to the FoV of the APS-C sensor, the IQ isn't too different, at least based on my comparison of the 5DII with the 7D.  The 7D image was slightly sharper, the 5DII image was slightly less noisy (and you can trade noise for sharpness, meaning effectively a wash).  But...the cropped 5DII image is only 8 MP, compared to the full 18 MP of the 7D.  So...if you need to crop further (or if 8 MP is not enough resolution for your desired output), then the APS-C sensor is the better choice.

Practically speaking, I often need to crop my 7D images of birds shot at 400mm, therefore I'm keeping my 7D after getting the 1D X.

Right, so if the 1DX was 46MP and had the same pixel density as the 7D then you could dispense with the crop camera :)

1511
A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

True when you're talking about IQ on the pixel level, untrue when you're talking about IQ on the image level.  The 20D and 5DII have the same size pixels.  Yes, the 5DII pixels are 'better' but not better enough to account for the IQ differences between the sensors.  The FF sensor has better IQ because as a whole, the larger sensor gathers more total light.

I'll beg to differ with you there. I'm pretty sure that if you took the center 8MP from a 5DII image that it would be better than the 20D's image when using the same lens at the same setting. e.g. from 20m away, use a 50/1.4 and photograph the same subject with both cameras. Yes, the images will not be the same but the center 8MP of both images should be. The center 8MP don't somehow magically benefit from the pixels around the edge of the sensor.

Yes, cropping throws away the benefit of the FF sensor gathering more total light.  I'm saying that if you move closer with the FF camera (or zoom in with a zoom lens) so you're getting the same framing covering the sensor, you'll get better IQ from the FF sensor.  That means there is an inherent advantage to FF, unless you go around shooting everything wider than you need and planning to crop away 60% of all your images.

But when you move or otherwise change the framing then you're undoing the "reach" aspect of crop sensors.

I also wonder whether the FF sensor does capture more light.

What determines how much light lands on the sensor is the lens.

Imagine, for instance, that you've got a light bulb on that's 3m away from the camera. The amount of light that will be collected by the lens is fixed, regardless of the camera/sensor, by the size of the front element of the lens. So the 50/1.4 will provide the same amount of illumination in the lightbox on a crop sensor as it will for a full frame. Now if both sensors have the same pixel density then the amount of light that is captured that represents the light is the same (assuming that the image of the light does not exceed the size of the sensor when projected into the camera by the lens.) So at this point, the full frame sensor does not capture more light over the same area of the sensor as the crop sensor. Overall the full frame sensor does gather more light but not from the subject. Replacing a crop sensor with a full frame sensor does not somehow magically cause there to be more light present.

When it changes is when we move closer to the object to replicate the same field of view that we had with the crop sensor. I'll note that in doing so, it is the increase in size of the image on the sensor that allows more light to be captured - the exposure parameters will also change as you get closer. Then because the distance relative to the object changes, we must therefore capture more light. That also goes to say that using a zoom lens in a manner that does not substantially change the distance to the subject will also not deliver more light.

Consider also that all sensors are the same distance from the lens' focal point.

What full frame sensors give us is better separation of detail. Of course, having said that, I feel like I'm wrong but I just can't see it.

For those that don't follow, the amount of light that reaches a given point from an object is an inverse-squared relationship, meaning that at 4m from an object you receive 1/4 of the light that you do when you're 2m from it.

1512
A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

True when you're talking about IQ on the pixel level, untrue when you're talking about IQ on the image level.  The 20D and 5DII have the same size pixels.  Yes, the 5DII pixels are 'better' but not better enough to account for the IQ differences between the sensors.  The FF sensor has better IQ because as a whole, the larger sensor gathers more total light.

I'll beg to differ with you there. I'm pretty sure that if you took the center 8MP from a 5DII image that it would be better than the 20D's image when using the same lens at the same setting. e.g. from 20m away, use a 50/1.4 and photograph the same subject with both cameras. Yes, the images will not be the same but the center 8MP of both images should be. The center 8MP don't somehow magically benefit from the pixels around the edge of the sensor.

1513
Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

I understand exactly what you mean... and i agree with you. BUT there is a solid reason for all 1D series ( 1D, 1Dmk2, 1Dmk2N, 1Dmk3 1Dmk4) to be APS-H and NOT FF.

Yes, because at that time it was cheaper and more cost effective for canon to manufacture the APS-H sensors than the Full Frame ones. I don't know why people keep searching for "some other reason". There isn't one and that one is pretty powerful for big companies that want to make money.

Reasonable enough until 1D3 and 1D4. If the money was the main reason then was more easy to use an already existing sensor in Canon range ( 5D 12.7MP for 1D3 and 5D2 sensor for 1D4) ... not spending money developing new APS-H sensors. Starting with Digic 3 processors canon had the processing power to use those sensors at 10 fps..... so the money reason is not standing up from my point of view.

Because you're looking at it from a consumer perspective, not a manufacturer's perspective. APS-H was the maximum size they could make cost effectively for a long time. Now that they can make full frame sensors cost effectively, there is no longer any reason for APS-H.

1514
Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

I understand exactly what you mean... and i agree with you. BUT there is a solid reason for all 1D series ( 1D, 1Dmk2, 1Dmk2N, 1Dmk3 1Dmk4) to be APS-H and NOT FF.

Yes, because at that time it was cheaper and more cost effective for canon to manufacture the APS-H sensors than the Full Frame ones. I don't know why people keep searching for "some other reason". There isn't one and that one is pretty powerful for big companies that want to make money.

1515
Have you not noticed that pro sports togs use 1D4's. There must have been a reason!

APS-C does not give the same IQ as APS-H
APS-H has more reach than ff

APS-H is the compromise solution that has no major weakness

I think you've left out two very important qualities: frame rate and auto-focus. Without those, the APS-H sensor would be meaningless.

A particular format of sensor has no IQ. There's nothing inherently better about APS-H than APS-C or FF.

IQ is a property of the design of the pixels and the sensor as a whole. If they used the same pixels from APS-C on a sensor that was APS-H then both sensors would have the same IQ. The only difference would be that the APS-H sensor would have more pixels - approximately 50% more. A 300mm lens on a 12MP APS-H has the same reach as a 8MP APS-C and 21MP Full Frame lens.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 177