November 22, 2014, 04:21:56 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 - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 104 105 [106] 107 108 ... 212
1576
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 12, 2013, 06:49:24 AM »
Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

And your point is being stated because???????????????????  What?  There are many shots I couldn't have gotten during fast-action basketball games, that I did get, simply because of fps.  I guess at the end of the day, who really cares when I got the shot and you didn't.  It's hard to print an 8x10 of something you don't have.

Point being that if you went there with (say) a 1DC, you could shoot 24fps at 4k resolution (~8MP) to get an 8x10 if you just shot in video mode. Now do you get it?

1577
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 10:32:59 PM »
Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

That is so unbelievably naive I don't even know where to start!!! Go read Art Moriss' blog, or any one of the worlds most renown bird photographers. MOST will tell you they are not good at BIF (Birds in Flight), because it takes a tremendous amount of detail-oriented SKILL. Good BIF photography requires dedicated practice to get right, as there are so many factors to consider, all of which must be continually addressed in real time!

It is not simply a matter of point, frame, and shoot. Achieving and maintaining correct exposure, particularly of birds, while they are in flight against a constantly changing background, is one of the most challenging things in photography. You've just shown your excessive naivete with the claim you've made above. Snap and compose my ***. You just insulted the entire community of bird photographers, particularly the experts at Bird in Flight photography.

Same for sports too. Even with tons of fps you still need a lot of skill. A newbie with 30fps will get much worse sports shots than a talented sports shooter with 4fps.

That is exactly my point. More fps doesn't give you better pictures, it just gives you more of them. Or to be more precise, it gives you more images that you delete so your keeper ratio is lower.

1578
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 10:30:24 PM »
...
I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

You might as well take a high resolution video camera...

And indeed that is what various people used to do to get good action shots of animals: they used film to capture lots of frames to get the one they wanted and blow that up large.

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

I sincerely hope that you take all your photos in manual mode using manual focus and don't bother to look at exposure displays or anything else, because that would be like cheating.

Well I actually do use "M" for about 80% of my photographs, including indoor photographs, so go figure.

Quote
Burst mode is a tool, to help you in times where action happens too fast for you to react.

These are all tools to enhance your abilities and creativity. Only a fool ignores good tools.

Depends on your perspective. Lots of FPS is like saying you don't know if a good photograph will appear with what you're doing so you capture lots on the pretense that at least one will be what you want. I've seen lots of people do it - including those with large format cameras.

1579
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 06:32:58 PM »
...
I like the Osprey example....

I wish to take a picture of an Osprey picking a fish out of the river.... this happens pretty fast, about 2 or 3 tenths of a second. This is faster than my reaction time so I have to anticipate the action and hope that my picture is taken at the right time... and with the speed things are moving I only get one shot.

Beside me is another photographer with a 1Dx set to take a burst at 10 frames per second. The other photographer starts thier burst before the Osprey hits the water and it continues until the fish is well clear. My picture is of the claws going into the water.. my timing is off. The other photographer has a string of twenty or so pictures from the Osprey approaching the water, through the grab, and as the catch clears the water. I have a great shot. The other photographer has twenty great shots, one or two of which show the intended image.

That is an indisputable reason for the use of bursts and how they can improve composition.

You might as well take a high resolution video camera...

And indeed that is what various people used to do to get good action shots of animals: they used film to capture lots of frames to get the one they wanted and blow that up large.

Sure, it may be the only way to "get the shot" but from a photography perspective it's kind of like cheating because there's no skill required on the photographer's part in knowing when to snap or compose.

1580
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 06:24:01 PM »
For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade. :)

...and for the 5DII crowd who shoot things that move.  ;)

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you.  Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had.  This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made.   If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

Pity that you didn't understand what I wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?
Shutter speed + lens + focus

If the speed of the object is such that the shutter speed isn't enough to freeze the object then it don't matter how good the focus is, you're still left with a blurry image.

Pity that you don't understand what you wrote. 

What makes a sharp photo?
Shutter speed + lens + focus


Since the 5DII and 5DIII can obviously be set to the same shutter speed with the same lens, the difference is the AF system.  "Focus" - your word. So...what you wrote suggests that you think the 5DIII's AF is not better than the 5DII's.


I didn't say that the 5DIII's AF wasn't better than the 5DII's. However the way you and everyone else talks about the AF, you could be forgiven for thinking that AF was the only factor in obtaining good action shots.

There is a certain range of subject motion for which the newer AF does make an improvement but it isn't complete.

Quote
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised...you also argued that the Canon DIGISUPER 75 broadcast TV lens was a camera, and you were way off base there, too (despite the fact that you refused to admit your mistake).

Well given that it was the only marking that could be seen on the entire device was on a lens that was not easily discernible as being a lens, one could easily be forgiven for mistaking the entire thing to being a camera.

1581
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 08:07:27 AM »
For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade. :)

...and for the 5DII crowd who shoot things that move.  ;)

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

Thanks, now I understand you.  Your dislike of the 5DIII (or maybe Canon, in general) has completely eliminated any objectivity you may have had.  This assertion is even more ludicrous that others you've made.   If you honestly believe that the better AF system of the 5DIII cannot yield better images of moving subjects than the 5DII, then I feel comfortable dismissing your arguments on the subject as biased to the point of irrelevance.

Pity that you didn't understand what I wrote.

What makes a sharp photo?
Shutter speed + lens + focus

If the speed of the object is such that the shutter speed isn't enough to freeze the object then it don't matter how good the focus is, you're still left with a blurry image.

1582
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:22:59 AM »
So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?
As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking.  Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.

Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.

What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.

In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?

No, what the Canon community here on CR (and, I would argue, the photographic community at large given how many 5D III's have sold) is saying is that IQ is not solely the domain of the image sensor. There are other aspects of IQ as well. The AF system is indeed a very significant factor that assists photographers in maximizing IQ. The increase in frame rate is another significant factor in maximizing IQ.

I'd like to know how a higher frame rate delivers better pictures. What it really delivers is pictures faster but if you know something I don't, please go ahead...

A high fps also introduces more shake into the camera body because the slap of that mirror against the camera body transfers momentum from the mirror to the camera.

Quote
The best sensor in the world doesn't matter a wit if its AF system and frame rate are low enough such that you can't actually capture the one frame where everything is still and sharp...a soft frame is a soft frame, regardless of whether the sensor pumps out beautifully soft pixels or not.

Again, frame rate does not correlate with sharpness. Just look at the 1D3. 10fps that delivered less than 50% usable pictures due to AF quirkiness. Boy was that a dog of a camera for sports photographers.

Quote
I'd offer that there are far more photographers who shoot high action in one form or another who use ISO settings 800 and above than photographers who shoot still scenes or low action and use ISO settings 400 and below. To the greater majority of photographers, the AF system and frame rate are critical factors to attaining the IQ they require. To that end, I'd say Canon did well by their customers, and clearly listened to what their customers were asking for...less megapixels, higher ISO, less noise at higher ISO (hell, even I asked for that!!! :D)

If I was a professional sports shooter, I wouldn't be using the 5DIII - except for those post match shots of presentations, etc, where a flash is often used.

Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.

So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.

Sorry, I completely disagree with that conclusion.  With a few notable (and *cough* vociferous) minority exceptions, the consensus was that the sensor-based IQ of the 5DII was excellent - it wasn't broke, and Canon didn't fix it.

And if Canon thought that then they're guilty of being complacent.

Quote
Perhaps your finger-pressing ability is not that fine, however our minds can indeed sense minute differences. Our ability to measure time perceptually is not limited to 1-second increments, and even if we cannot send an impulse from our brains to our fingers in 1/20th of a second, that does not mean we cannot sense the difference between 1/10th and 1/20th of a second. Especially in the context of a camera shutter...looking through the viewfinder, it is very easy to recognize a TWO-FOLD difference in shutter performance, especially when holding the shutter button down and watching frame after frame race past at nearly double the speed. I'll say that again...a TWO FOLD, FACTOR OF TWO, 100% or DOUBLE the difference in shutter speed...relatively speaking, that is a huge difference!

You're mixing two very different things up in the one paragraph as if they were the same. And the way you're screaming about 6fps is similar to the way people screamed about more megapixels in days gone by. *yawn*

But again, taking more pictures every second has nothing to do with IQ. Really, it just determines how quickly our SF/SD/HDD fills up.

In the last 3 years of shooting every week, I've needed/wanted more than 3 fps exactly once.

Quote
Except that for the price the IQ is very very ordinary.


What exactly is "ordinary IQ"? I think your generalizing a bit too much...

The 5DII/5DIII IQ is now no longer anything special as it was when the 5DII debuted. It is now back in the pack and even various APS-C sensors out-do it.

1583
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 04:05:52 AM »
For the 5DC, 7D and rebel-crowd, I'm sure the 5D3 is a great upgrade. :)

...and for the 5DII crowd who shoot things that move.  ;)

You're telling me that using a 5DIII with the same shutter speed and aperture as a 5DII will result in better photos of "action"?? I'd like to know how you work that magic. Do things automatically go slower when they sense a 5DIII is taking a photo of them?

1584
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 11, 2013, 01:58:15 AM »
Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.

What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.

In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?

First, what makes you think I'm 'fixed on megapixels'?? I'm quite happy with the 18 MP that I have. Also, in case it escaped your notice, this rumor thread is about a high MP Canon body...no guarantee of better IQ, and as I alluded to earlier, high MP doesn't mean 'better'.

Because when I was critical of the 5D3 sensor (without being specific), you mentioned megapixels.

But I do agree - more megapixels does not necessarily mean better IQ.

If Canon do deliver more MP and the IQ is about the same then they'll quite likely get blasted again.

More and more, people want discernibly better IQ, not just more MP or the same MP.

Quote
Second, I do take issue with your statements that Canon's current sensors are somehow 'bad'.  I'm not saying they're the best on the market, they're not...but implying they're sub-par is rather disingenuous.

Ok, that's just a battle of words that would make lawyers rub their hands with glee.

Quote
Third, who the heck is 'the entire Canon community'?  I can only assume you're referring to the tiny minority of people here bitching about Canon's 'terribly low DR' and 'horrible, shot-destroying pattern noise.'  The 'Canon community' and in fact, the dSLR-buying community at large seems to be quite pleased with the 5DIII, and with Canon in general.

Yes, they're so please with them that online vendors have effectively had fire sales to get rid of stock. e.g. Adorama's(?) sale of 900+ units at $2750. So a store bought a lot of them from Canon and obviously they didn't walk out as quickly as imagined, so the store had to take emergency measures to offload them.

If Canon hadn't of introduced MAP, the price of the 5D Mark III would probably now be at around $2800 everywhere, if not lower.

1585
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 10, 2013, 08:59:12 PM »
So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?

It tells me nothing. There have been 'stories' of a new 100-400L for what...7-8 years?  There have even been at least two patents. Where's the lens? Stories.

As for a 5DIII 'replacement', I'd say BS and wishful thinking.  Many of the people clamoring for a high MP camera from Canon don't want to pay the price for a 1-series body, and from such dreams, rumors are born.

Don't be so fixed on megapixels as being the only problem that needs attention.

What needs addressing is IQ. A combination of more megapixels and improvements in noise, DR, etc, is what is sought.

In essence, this is what the entire Canon community (apart from a few deniers such as yourself) seem to be saying - a new camera that costs $800-$900 more but my pictures are pretty much the same as before. WTF?

Quote
Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.

So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.

Sorry, I completely disagree with that conclusion.  With a few notable (and *cough* vociferous) minority exceptions, the consensus was that the sensor-based IQ of the 5DII was excellent - it wasn't broke, and Canon didn't fix it.  Because of that excellent IQ, many people used the 5DII for tasks for which it's not ideal.  There's a reason I and a whole bunch of other people had both a 5DII and a 7D.  What Canon did with the 5DIII was, IMO, huge.  They took a camera with already excellent IQ, and improved substantially on the overall performance. 

For 5DII tripod-only, ISO 100 shooters, I can see the incremental nature of the upgrade. But if that's you, the answer is simple - keep your 5DII.

You state, "If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III...," which I take to mean you haven't.

After a couple years shooting a 7D and a 5DII, when I tried out a 5DIII what I immediately noticed was that it felt 'fast'. For example, the difference between the ~200 ms shutter lag of the 5DII and the ~100 ms lag of the 5DIII is very apparent.

From the ones I've picked up in stores, I've not noticed any difference. If I pick up a stop watch and time 1/10th of a second vs 1/20th of a second, it is almost impossible to do manually because the resolution of my finger pressing ability is not that fine.

Quote
My overall impression of the 5DIII is that using it feels like using a 7D from a performance standpoint, and it delivers the IQ of the 5DII - that's a powerful combination, and whereas the 5DII was liked (almost exclusively) for its IQ, the 5DIII is, IMO, the best all-around dSLR on the market.

Except that for the price the IQ is very very ordinary.

1586
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 10, 2013, 08:40:16 AM »
In short, the only thing that Canon really got right with the 5D Mark III was autofocus (probably because that was the leading criticism from the 5D Mark II) but in fixing that, it is almost like they ignored the rest of the camera (sensor included.) Oops!

Yep.  The 50% faster frame rate, better sealing, better viewfinder, dual card slots, shutter lag reduced by half, better metering, better ergonomics including a multicontroller on the grip, etc., it does seem like Canon ignored everything but the AF.  Right.

So Canon did all of this yet there are stories already about a quick replacement of the 5D3? Well, that tells you how important that list of "improvements" that you listed is, doesn't it?

If I want lots of frames per second then I buy a 1D series or 1DX series. If I want lots of fps, I don't buy the 5D3. Whilst the 5D3 may do more fps than the 5D2, you don't buy a 5D3 if you need high fps because if you do, the number of fps in a 5D3 is not going to be enough. And so on.

Let me put this another way. If I pick up and use a 5D Mark III, what am I going to notice as being significantly better aside from the AF? Nothing. What do I see as being better when I look at the images on my computer? Nothing.

So $800 or $900 more for improved AF.

1587
EOS Bodies / Re: Cost of Canon 5D mk III
« on: February 10, 2013, 08:10:51 AM »
Unless you NEED the 5D3 now, just wait until there is a special advertised for $2900 or less.

1588
Lenses / Re: Considering the Zeiss 21
« on: February 10, 2013, 08:07:06 AM »
Canon urgently needs to replace the 16-35 and 17-40. Or at least the 17-40. That's even if they bring out a 14-24 or similar. Otherwise, yes, get the 21 because nothing from Canon compares.

1589
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 10, 2013, 06:55:34 AM »
Quote
EOS 5D X?
A faster update? One suggestion from a known source is that Canon has loose plans to replace and/or update the EOS 5D Mark III quicker than the previous iterations. Could we see one some time in 2014? I would think a direct replacement would be unlikely, however a small, high performance & higher megapixel DSLR would probably have a place in the market.

I'm not surprised. The 5D Mark III has only delivered to a couple of segments of the 5D Mark II's market and the 6D delivers to only one (the amateur) and possibly none. The above rumor is undoubtedly in response to this plus the D800's lower price and the 5D Mark III "sales" that have been in the $2750-$2900 range indicating that Canon got the target price wrong, especially given two key feature comparisons (megapixels, IQ.)

There may also be questions being asked about the feature comparison with the 6D (WiFi, GPS)

In short, the only thing that Canon really got right with the 5D Mark III was autofocus (probably because that was the leading criticism from the 5D Mark II) but in fixing that, it is almost like they ignored the rest of the camera (sensor included.) Oops!

1590
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Camera in 2014
« on: February 09, 2013, 10:33:52 AM »
What will the four lenses be?

1. 200-400. confirmed by many sources and recently an interview. It IS coming.
2. 14-24. Seems likely as the wide angle is where Canon is hurting lots.
3. 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 IS USM? This lens is widely known to be weak wide open. Or the 50/1.2 but that's very young.

After that.. it becomes guess work.

Replace the 17-40 or the 16-35? Both are very week wide open and at 17/16mm respectively.
Replace the 100-400?
Replace the 24-105? It is a very weak "L" lens and newer cameras will need something better for a "kit" lens. Or will it be replaced by the 24-70/f4 as the kit lens?
Another??

Pages: 1 ... 104 105 [106] 107 108 ... 212