July 30, 2014, 04:02:16 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 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 180
1546
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.

1547
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?

1548
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

1549
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.

1550
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 :)

1551
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.

1552
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.

1553
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.

1554
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.

1555
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.

1556
EOS Bodies / Re: 4 More DSLRs Coming in 2012? [CR2]
« on: June 15, 2012, 06:56:46 AM »
How long from the rumour to 'fact' - 8 years?

The 1DX is IMO a replacement for the 1D4 - the 1DS3 was just dumped with the usual executive words around it to avoid upsetting the studio shooters

Does it matter how long it took?

And do you have reason to believe that it could have been any quicker than it was?

And for what it's worth, your opinion on the positioning of the 1DX is a whole lot less valuable than any comment from a Canon exec.

My 'opinion'  is a comparison of  two real cameras - not  vapourware of an event  that might or might not happen somewhere in the future.  Shame you have to keep putting down people for saying their opinion.

Opinions are like a******s - everyone's got one. I'm not interested in opinions because they're worthless and they shouldn't be presented as if they were fact.

Quote
Do you really think the 18mps ff 1DX is a sucessor to a 21mps ff?

Well this is a quote from Canon's press release for the 1DX:
"As the new leader in Canon’s arsenal of professional DSLRs, the EOS-1D X will be a high-speed multimedia juggernaut replacing both the EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup."

Need any more be said?

1557
Canon must response  somehow to Nikon. Don't forget the marketing ( something new, something unique ... WOW)...

The APS-H sensor, mirror mechanism, mount, AF system is allready in use. Canon must only redesign the sensor MP and the camera body ( everything else is existing) From the cost point of view only the body and sensor must be redesigned.

There is no "wow" factor involved with the APS-H sensor, it is an old trick and its shine has worn off.

What wildlife/bird shooters want is greater pixel density (or smaller pixels), which is usually an anathema to everyone.

If Canon delivered a FF 46MP DSLR tomorrow, I can almost guarantee you that there'd be a loud chorus of "too many MP", "bad for low light", "bad for high-ISO" and "who needs so many MP" yet it would simply have the same pixel density as the 7D and thus a 300mm zoom on it would result in the same detail as a 300mm on a 7D.


There’s a price war looming. Canon is going to be hard pressed to adjust to whatever the competition push them to do. Good for us anyway.

Agreed.

You forget one essential aspect for wildlife/outdoor photography ... The extra reach.

No, you just don't understand what "extra reach" really means.

A 46MP Full Frame sensor has the same "reach" as a 18MP APS-C sensor.

What you see through the viewfinder deceives you into thinking that you are getting something that you are not.

The current advantage of APS-C sensors of full frame sensors is the increased pixel density on the sensor.

Or to put it another way, both the 20D and 30D have exactly the same "reach" as a 5D MarkII, 1Ds Mark II and for all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III.

1558
Canon must response  somehow to Nikon. Don't forget the marketing ( something new, something unique ... WOW)...

The APS-H sensor, mirror mechanism, mount, AF system is allready in use. Canon must only redesign the sensor MP and the camera body ( everything else is existing) From the cost point of view only the body and sensor must be redesigned.

There is no "wow" factor involved with the APS-H sensor, it is an old trick and its shine has worn off.

What wildlife/bird shooters want is greater pixel density (or smaller pixels), which is usually an anathema to everyone.

If Canon delivered a FF 46MP DSLR tomorrow, I can almost guarantee you that there'd be a loud chorus of "too many MP", "bad for low light", "bad for high-ISO" and "who needs so many MP" yet it would simply have the same pixel density as the 7D and thus a 300mm zoom on it would result in the same detail as a 300mm on a 7D.


There’s a price war looming. Canon is going to be hard pressed to adjust to whatever the competition push them to do. Good for us anyway.

Agreed.


1559
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: So Nikon D600 is real after all
« on: June 14, 2012, 10:17:07 PM »
maybe just maybe if a bunch of canon shooters jump to the dark side, maybe we will see a huge flux of gear up for sale...  =)  sweet.

If Nikon provides me a camera with better IQ than the 5D3 for half the price, I'll be one of them.

I doubt that D600 will have better IQ than 5D3. Nikon will definitely be keeping a good quality difference between D600 and D800 if D600 is half the price of D800.

If you want the best quality and the most megapixels, you'll get the D800. The D600 is for those that want full frame but have neither the money nor the technique to get the best out of the D800.

The D600 will be a bigger threat to Canon than it will be to Nikon's D800.

For the price of a 5D3 you will be able to buy a D600 plus lens or two.

The 5D3 has two problems:
1) price tag
2) sensor
and Canon can only fix one of those without replacing the product. That said, maybe the 5D3 will go the way of the 1D3 and have a short life span of about 18 months.

1560
Third Party Manufacturers / Tamron need some more FF lenses...
« on: June 14, 2012, 10:07:58 PM »
At least two lenses that I can think of.

* A wide angle zoom, from 16-17mm to 28-40mm (not really worried about f-stop)
* A standard f/4 zoom from 24mm to 100 to 120mm (with IS)

With Tamron's current delivery, they'd have a 24-100-something that would retail for around $600 and be as good as or better than Canon's and also kick Canon in the pants with a wide angle that works.

I'm not much in favour of lenses wider than 16mm on full frame because they end up requiring a curved front element which introduces lots of other problems.

Pages: 1 ... 102 103 [104] 105 106 ... 180