July 28, 2014, 11:33:17 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 179
61
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.

62
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.

63
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.

64
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?

65
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!

66
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.

67
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.

68
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.)

69
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
« on: July 04, 2014, 01:26:24 AM »
It isn't difficult or that time consuming to make your own with the free Adobe Lens Profile Creator.
I remember they had really detailed instructions about this when they first released it, but I never got around to trying it.  Have you made some?  If so, I'm guessing the results are pretty good given that it's a profile of your own lens+camera combination.

Does it need much adjustment? I thought this lens was nearly perfect :D
For my commercial work - mostly building interiors - where I have used the 16-35 f/2.8 II and plan to use this lens, having perfectly straight lines is really important and having profiles saves a lot of time.  The manual distortion tools work, but sometimes you end up driving yourself crazy trying to tweak the distortion, especially if there are numerous lines converging all over the place with patterned carpet, wallpapers, and such.   And maybe I'm just a bit obsessive :o

You should be using the TS/E lenses for this work.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:27:31 PM »
If Canon puts 4k into the 5Dmk4, it'll probably be a 8bit 4:2:0 internal recording just like the GH4. Possibly 4:2:2 8bit to an external recorder, but I don't see them doing much more than that. Anything else would essentially eliminate the 1Dc in the eyes of any indie film maker, as well as anyone that doesn't need to do any kind of heavy grading.

Yup, I can see that happening.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:24:48 PM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

I can't speak to the features of the 5D III replacement, but the 7D II absolutely 100% will not have 4k video.

Can you tell us more about what the 7D II will have?

72
Animal Kingdom / Re: Bears in the Wild
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:23:59 PM »
Any pictures of wild bears? I'll post a few. My brother-in-law and I were down in Waterton Lakes National Park, Alberta, Canada, a couple of weeks ago looking for bears to photograph. We encountered ten. No grizzles, just black bears.

National parks advertise the minimum safe distance to wild bears as 100 yards.

How close were you?

73
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV To Feature 4K Video?
« on: July 03, 2014, 12:10:52 PM »
This might be disappointing news, as Canon might use 4K to differentiate the 7D replacement from the 5D replacement, meaning the 7D replacement wouldn't get 4K.  That would be the disappointing part.

As to whether or not the 7D replacement being disappointing without 4K, that'll depend on its price point. If it is over $2000, then yes. Under $2000, not as much.

74
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 16-35 F/4L IS -- Reviews are trickling in...
« on: July 02, 2014, 12:44:47 PM »
...
which makes it all the more tricky to compare real world.

So it sounds like you've discovered why DxO use the methodology that they do.

75
The rumor says:

"new telephoto lens"

which could easily mean a telephoto lens design that currently doesn't exist as well as an update of one that does.

Why not announce a new APS-C telephoto lens with a new APS-C camera?

because there is no point in an aps-c telephoto

If there is no point in an APS-C telephoto then why does the EF-S 55-250 exist?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 179