July 24, 2014, 11:44:38 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 178
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E for $2399 on ebay (New)
« on: July 10, 2014, 03:38:21 PM »
I guess that is a good price for grey market. 

Amazon has it for 3300.  That's a grand cheaper.  A good deal... perhaps too good?

The rumor is that Nikon is dumping stock now that the D810 has arrived, etc.

33
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 02:22:13 PM »
At its core, I believe, DXO does measurements to support its software packages. The data they generate and publish on DXOMark is somewhat useful to consumers, but it's extremely useful to them. It's a bit silly/sad that they got in the scoring business as their unspecified methods sometimes produce clearly absurd results, which gives the entire outfit a bit of a black mark (and invites questions like 'well if you don't like their scores, why do you use their software').

Consider that across the Internet, criticism of DxO typically only comes from people that own Canon products. That piece of data speaks volumes about how DxO results are absorbed, don't you think?

34
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:50:00 AM »
And since you have stated that you use DxO Optics for your image processing and thus give DxO your money, you obviously value their methods and results above whatever you may write here or elsewhere in dismissal of them. And on that note, shouldn't we thus brand you a troll every time you dis DxO or make implications in that direction?

Why don't you go back and read how and why I criticize DxO before making such a foolish statement.

I really don't care about your how and why in criticizing DxO, you give them your money and actions speak louder than words.

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:16:25 AM »
Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

What I know is you need more than a $2,199 Zeiss to resolve 100% of a 36MP 135 format sensor. DXO just did it again, they threw any "scientific" credibility they had out the window, not that they had much left anyway.

What is the basis for your knowledge here?

My earlier linked law of physics.

You're assuming that the imperfections in the lens are noticable/detectable with that camera.

As has been quite eloquently shown by many DSLRs, lenses for SLRs that were thought perfect in film days are been found lacking in the digital era.

Or to put it differently, that Zeiss lens outresolves the sensor.

There is no such thing as lens outresolves sensor or sensor outresolves lens. That's a misnomer.

Well it is an easy way to describe a situation where the reproduction of an image isn't limited by the ability of the lens to draw an image on the sensor. Got a better (and equally short) phrase to use?

36
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 10, 2014, 09:13:58 AM »
the fact that DxO have embarrassed themselves as "scientists" yet again by claiming the physically impossible.

Hmmm....isn't DXO a French company?  I wonder if any of their "scientists" were involved in that faster-than-light neutrino error a few years ago.   ;D
Ignorant, facile and bordering on racist. You're not an American, are you?

No sense of humor, easily offended, and beyond the border of insulting.  You're not French, are you?

The only ignorance I see is you not understanding the difference between race and nationality. 

Physics coordinator Dario Autiero of the Institute of Nuclear Physics in Lyon, France, resigned over the OPERA debacle.  DxO is a French company, they claim a scientific basis (e.g. "Image Science" in their logo), but they don't fully disclose their methods and they fail to acknowledge their errors (instead they surreptitiously alter their original data).   Both are hallmarks of poor science, as was the publication of faster-than-light neutrinos (although as good scientists, the OPERA team did acknowledge their errors and publish corrections). 

The rest was humorous coincidence (did you somehow miss the smiley emotion?).

And since you have stated that you use DxO Optics for your image processing and thus give DxO your money, you obviously value their methods and results above whatever you may write here or elsewhere in dismissal of them. And on that note, shouldn't we thus brand you a troll every time you dis DxO or make implications in that direction?

37
Photography Technique / Re: sunset post-processing
« on: July 10, 2014, 12:17:15 AM »
Hi guys,

I was wondering if you had any generic tips / techniques that you always use and look for when post processing sunsets.

I am only a photo enthusiast (I have never sold my pictures), I don't like the extreme HDR look too much, i try to play as little as i can with levels trying to keep a "realistic" image but i feel like i am missing something when editing photos that can push it "to the next level" and i am not sure of what it is...

for instance, what would you do with this picture?

Bright lights require dark shadows and contrast somewhere.

38
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 10:05:43 AM »
Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

What I know is you need more than a $2,199 Zeiss to resolve 100% of a 36MP 135 format sensor. DXO just did it again, they threw any "scientific" credibility they had out the window, not that they had much left anyway.

What is the basis for your knowledge here?

My earlier linked law of physics.

You're assuming that the imperfections in the lens are noticable/detectable with that camera.

As has been quite eloquently shown by many DSLRs, lenses for SLRs that were thought perfect in film days are been found lacking in the digital era.

Or to put it differently, that Zeiss lens outresolves the sensor.

39
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: July 09, 2014, 02:11:45 AM »
Most definitely. I'd love to see a chart of total resolving power versus dollars. Gotta pay to play.

What I know is you need more than a $2,199 Zeiss to resolve 100% of a 36MP 135 format sensor. DXO just did it again, they threw any "scientific" credibility they had out the window, not that they had much left anyway.

What is the basis for your knowledge here?

Quote
Quote
A result made all the more comical when you look at the $4,000 Otus results on the D800E, down to 33MP, a drop of over 8% for what is regarded as one of the finest photography camera lenses ever made. I think DXO have two teams of testers and the Canon team, who clearly multiply all their results by 0.9, mistakenly did the Nikon Otus when they did the Canon Otus as well. No that's not true, I believe the Canon testers are OK, it is the Nikon test team that multiply all their results by 1.15.

As for not being able to have 99% of perfection or it being a strange way to look at it, I understand that, I was just trying to illustrate that anybody claiming perfect anything is farcical and it isn't as simple as the lens being capable of resolving more than the sensor. Like the >14 stops of DR in a 14 bit file, extrapolate to ridiculous figures all you want (DXO) but if I can't actually realise that shadow lifting capability it is of no practical use.

Totally agree with everything here. DXO has some really wacko shite goin on with their lens tests. They have the weirdest lens test results I've ever seen...anywhere.

But that wacko S___ produces arguably the best RAW conversion results when they feed it into DxO Optics.

40
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 08, 2014, 05:54:33 PM »
Yup, in terms of IQ, this lens just blows away the 16-35 and 17-40.

If you've still got one of those two lenses, you could try giving it away for free because they're not really worth having now.

Holy inflammatory statement Batman!  Seriously....enough of the rhetoric already.  For my purposes the 17-40 is a gem of a lens...but then again I just use it for landscapes between f8-f11.  I'm sure the new 16-35 f4 is a great lens...and it should be given that Canon is WAY behind in providing superior quality UWA zooms, but it's not like their existing lenses are garbage.

generally agreed, although it is starting to seem, that at least on the wider end the new one is better even at landscape apertures than the 17-40 and even a touch compared to 16-35 II and not just for sharpness but for resistance to nasty purple fringing and stuff.

Quote
Truth be told the UWA zooms in the current lineup are better than most of the photogs who buy them.

Personally I think this types of statements are as silly as the other guy saying the only possible place for the 16-35 II and 17-40L is in the trash, they are useless now 100%. It's nonsense, heck we one swapped top end super-tele and 1 series with newbie sports shooters rebels and lenses and guess what the newbies some without even the best talent on top all instantly did better with the top gear. So it's silly to go around saying how most equipment is better than most photogs who buy it.

I stand by my statement...the TRUE differences in image quality between a 17-40mm and a 16-35f4 are negligible compared to the skill required to get the most out of them.  Your thinking is why so many people try and 'buy' themselves Galen Rowell quality landscapes by buying the latest, greatest gear and upgrading every year...which is fine I guess if you can afford it.  The fact is though that a 17-40mm is capable of providing world class imagery if you know what you're doing.  You can't buy an artistic vision...

Sure, all that you've got to do is make sure that anything with detail in it is in the center of the lens, not in the corner or edges.

Problem is that when you're shooting landscapes, you've got detail everywhere that you want to keep.

That sort of restriction kind of messes with your artistic vision. Unless your artistic vision for landscape photography is limited to that of a portrait photographer.

41
Photography Technique / Re: Tour de France crops
« on: July 08, 2014, 01:47:45 PM »
Yesterday afternoon a stage of the Tour de France started from Cambridge

Someone please explain why the "Tour de France" started in England?

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 01:16:49 PM »
Dissapointingly, the three 50/51/55mm f1.4 designs all seem to be using gausian optics...which has largely been the blame for poorly resolving optics. Both the Carl Zeiss and Sigma 50mm lenses use a back focus design (simular to the 35mm f1.4) to resolve a higher resolution. Gausian optics offer a smaller and light weight construction, but at the expense of more optical defects and lower optical resolution.

I was hoping to see a new approach from Canon with their 50mm optical formulas, but these three patents look like the same old, same old. If any of these three lenses make it to the market place (and that's a big "IF") then i doubt we'll see much improvement over the old one...which makes me ask...why bother?

To give this patent proper perspective, it was filed before the Sigma/Zeiss lenses were announced and tested, so at the time of filing, Canon didn't know what the competition was going to produce in terms of IQ.

Unless these designs (which all have a more complex optical formula than existing lenses) deliver comparable IQ, Canon might decide to kill the lenses that would result from these designs and start over. Have to wait and see!

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 55mm f/1.4 & Other Primes
« on: July 07, 2014, 05:53:48 AM »
This story is a duplicate of another one recently put on Canon Rumors (2 weeks ago):

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21561.msg409806#msg409806

My comment from that thread was based on the length of these lenses it would appear that Canon has also departed from the double gaussian design, as have Sigma and Zeiss.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:24:31 PM »
...
The thing operated at 9.5fps, and it really doesn't matter if it had small pixels, because fundamental IQ is related to total sensor area and Q.E., not pixel area.

Except that the more rows and columns that are present, the more space is lost to the barriers in-between. If they can keep the area covered by pixels constant whilst reducing the pixel size to provide more pixels then yes, you're right. This comes down to manufacturing process where Canon have been using a larger process.  Canon is an using old .5 µm process, while Sony and Toshiba have advanced to .25 µm and .18 µm processes. See the chipsworks site for more info.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 04, 2014, 01:23:24 PM »
Video in a DSLR is a high demand item, and has likely reduced the price of a 5D2 and 5D3 because of the bigger sales volume.  The feature sells cameras. and high volume reduces prices. 

The 5D2 was hard to get a hold of and didn't see a price drop for quite a long time due to demand for it as a video tool and that demand was something that Canon didn't foresee.

Since the supply of the 5D2 was not geared for the sales that it saw, the video kept the price up due to demand.

So on this count, you're wrong (at least for the 5D2.)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 178