August 20, 2014, 10:33:09 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 ... 186
61
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 06, 2014, 11:41:10 PM »
...
Really?  I can't count the number of times people here and on other forums have stated the D800 can record 14.2 stops of DR.  Surely you remember Dean, our award-winning professional photographer who's one-day spree of posts disappeared?  He seems to have inhaled the stench of DxO's BS quite deeply...
...

He also stated that he's used both cameras (which I have yet to see you say) and commented that the observable difference in DR between Canon's FF cameras and the D800 was about 3 stops which aligns with what DxO reports. And that's the common view: regardless of what the absolute DR is of the D8x0 camera, it demonstrates significant extra DR (around 3 stops worth) over Canon's cameras.

So bitch all you like about how DxO is wrong as it won't give the Canon any extra stops of DR and it won't narrow the gap between Canon's sensors and those that Nikon use.

62
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:30:47 PM »
The EF lenses would vignette like crazy, but maybe less than expected. The T/S lenses are basically MF with large image circle. A sensor size where the most common or best EF image circles just touched the top and bottom ... 12mm away .. might be usable. Or less ambitious, touched the left and right ... 18mm away.

Except that the T/S lenses would then cease to be a T/S lens because the image circle isn't big enough.

For Canon to start its own MF line requires a whole new camera system to be designed. This could go down as:
* body with integrated sensor - to just supply a body with sensor and use existing lenses (similar approach to 645Z)
* body with integrated sensor + lenses - similar approach to the 645Z but only works with Canon lenses
* MFDB - similar approach to Leaf and Phase One and leave body/lens manufacturing to others
* MFDB + body - produce a body that takes existing MF lenses from other manufacturers
* MFDB + body + lenses - introduce a whole new ecosystem (return on investment possible?)

To look at it from a different perspective, who would buy into Canon MFDB?
* sports photographers - they would need to replace all of their current lenses with newer, bigger lenses and if they don't work from monopods/tripods, they would then need to. For newspapers, etc, this ecosystem upgrade would be costly without any gain as current model FF cameras deliver what's required. i.e. no buyers here.

* event photographers - aren't going to want to carry around bigger and bulkier cameras and lenses to gigs, concerts, etc.

* wedding photographers - some parts of the wedding (non-walk around shoots) are suitable for MF shooting but not a whole lot. Those at the top end of this market are probably already using MF but it isn't a big market. With the barrier to entry being so low, it is hard to see wedding photographers being able to justify the spend.

* studio photographers - this group of the market is where most of the MF activity lives today. It's not an incredibly big market (if unit sales are anything to go by) and Canon would need to be very disruptive and aggressive to break into it.

* hobbyists - just don't have the money required (or not enough of them that do!) to make it worthwhile. When the type of photography is examined further, the group that benefits is landscape shooters but again equipment will become larger and less fun to take with you. If you're doing animals birds (in flight especially) then you'll need to buy and wield bigger cameras and lenses which is not all that attractive.

* cat photography - obviously the docile nature of cats and their fur makes them the perfect subject for MF digital photography however cat photographers do not seem to be particularly fussy about which camera they use so there could be difficulty in convincing this group to open their wallets.

63
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:03:02 PM »
... there are just more leaks coming from Nikon.

^^This

I've said for years that Canon's weather sealing is superior to Nikon's, and the greater number of Nikon leaks just proves my point.

 ;)

10 years ago that wasn't the case and after a series of leaks that didn't look very "leaky" about Canon equipment, "news" websites got pissed off that scoops in announcing new cameras went to other websites that weren't bound by NDAs leading to complaints being made back into Canon.

64
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Doing Market Research on Medium Format?
« on: August 06, 2014, 09:42:51 AM »
the nikon rumors website claims that no such thing is going to happen but i sometimes wonder if that website is more of an arm of nikon marketing ...

65
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 06, 2014, 09:40:54 AM »
So, yes, it's possible to get more bits of data than you have available bits of an ADC.

Sure.  It's possible to upsample an image and get a print that looks good, too.  Doesn't mean the data are real. 

are you saying you disagree, that you can't squeeze 13 effective bits from properly processing a 12 bit data set?

if so, you might want to have a conversation with the engineers at NASA, Texas Instruments, HP/Agilent/name du-jour, Tektronix, National Semiconductor, etc.

Do you have a reference to equipment from said companies that demonstrates the point you are making here?

66
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 06, 2014, 12:07:35 AM »
This guy really doesn't get it... it's hopeless!

Hey, don't blame me - I'm not the one asserting that extra stops of DR and information in the image files is wasted, it is others. The only problem is that it would seem that all of those bits that they say you don't need are actually used by them anyway.

If people would stop trying to belittle and put down Sony's sensors because they deliver and offer more DR then it would be a whole lot easier. This is where the problems stem from: trying to assert that what comes off the Sony sensors is no better than the Canon's.

I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could use Google and find threads on here where various people have waxed lyrical (and received support for) about Canon producing sensors with fewer larger pixels with more DR and better IQ - especially in low light. Well guess what, Sony has done that.

But instead of accepting that and congratulating Sony on doing it, people are arguing about how all of that extra DR and IQ is not necessary. What a load of horse sh*t.

wow....

Yeah...he seems to think EVERYONE shoots at ISO 100.

I just had three 40x30" prints made of some of my photography. Bird and wildlife photos. All of them were at ISO 1600 and above, one was at ISO 12800. All of them had to be cropped a bit and rotated a little to get the right framing. Every single one of them was upsampled, and required heavy and carefully masked noise reduction in the smooth OOF  background areas to smooth them out, and careful masking and detail enhancement in the foreground detail areas. Even with a D800, we'd be talking about a 2x scale factor, from high ISO shots. There would be ABSOLUTELY ZERO benefit in IQ or DR if I'd used a D800 instead of a 5D III to take these shots, considering how they were printed.

Just as a reminder, this thread is about the Sony A7s, which has both better DR and better high ISO performance than the 5D3 and 6D.

67
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:30:40 PM »
...
The next gen cycle will only drop prices even futher to the point where MF will become mainstream again. it's just a matter of time.

MF never was mainstream.

68
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:22:56 PM »
So now <the D810> certainly IS competition for the 5d3 in more types of shooting.

Yet Nikon IS still predicting greater sales losses than Canon.  Some competition...   ::)

as long as SoNikon sell enough to stay in production and a step ahead I'm OK with that.
I don't own stock in any of them. :P

Edit: typo

Agreed.  For some people, low ISO DR is critical, and for them it's good to have options.

And for a small but vocal group of people, high ISO is all they care about.

69
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:38:04 AM »
I wouldn't be surprised if the Canon cine lenses spent much longer in the hands of humans tweaking and polishing and perfecting each lens so that each one goes out as close to identical as possible rather than just being on an assembly line, such as the 50/1.8s likely are.

70
From the very first pictures I saw posted with people showing how good the corners were, it was obvious this was going to review well and not has it only reviewed well from an IQ perspective but also from a build perspective. Canon has really hit the spot with this lens. The only down side about that is it will probably sell well enough for them to make discounts and rebates on this lens less likely in the near future.

71
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:32:48 AM »
This guy really doesn't get it... it's hopeless!

Hey, don't blame me - I'm not the one asserting that extra stops of DR and information in the image files is wasted, it is others. The only problem is that it would seem that all of those bits that they say you don't need are actually used by them anyway.

If people would stop trying to belittle and put down Sony's sensors because they deliver and offer more DR then it would be a whole lot easier. This is where the problems stem from: trying to assert that what comes off the Sony sensors is no better than the Canon's.

I'm pretty sure that if I tried, I could use Google and find threads on here where various people have waxed lyrical (and received support for) about Canon producing sensors with fewer larger pixels with more DR and better IQ - especially in low light. Well guess what, Sony has done that.

But instead of accepting that and congratulating Sony on doing it, people are arguing about how all of that extra DR and IQ is not necessary. What a load of horse sh*t.

72
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:17:14 AM »
If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

I don't know what to say. I'd have never made a school teacher.

You're confusing theoretical DR from bit depth of A/D converter with a 16 bit RGB TIF file in post processing, or something like that.

If you start out with a JPEG file then there's no need to ever edit in 16bit mode because your data cannot fill all of the 16bits (maybe every second bit.)

Now if you've got a 14 bit A/D that generates 11 stops of DR then you've got 11bits worth of width in the source data. Obviously there is information loss if you squeeze 11 into 8 but similarly, you cannot map the entire 11 into 16 without either creating holes or making up data. When you add in more DR you then get more bits to fill out the 16 with and hence get better IQ. Seems reasonable, yes?

Afterall, 1 stop of DR is 1 bit position in the image file, right?

73
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:36:50 AM »
The whole point here being it is completely disingenuous to claim that more stops of DR are wasted because they can't be used on the screen or on paper.

They do get used and jrista has demonstrated how they do.

They don't get wasted and every bit of extra shadow, highlight and gradation helps improve the final IQ of images.

Thus there's nothing to gain from putting Sony's A7s down because it generates "too much DR." It'd be like criticising a sonata from Mozart because it has too many notes!

74
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:32:55 AM »
...
Now jrista is going to patiently and conscientiously, like a seasoned old school master teaching a delinquent child, explain to you why we work in 16 bit.
...

I know why *I* work in 16bit but I wanted to see why *he* works in 16bit.

To me it seems like he's confused. His printer outputs 8 stops of DR yet he wants to work with 11 stops of DR from 14bit images (in a world where we equate 1bit with 1 stop of DR [people complained about Sony claiming > 15bits DR just because the files were only 14bit without seeing output] it seems that there are 3 bits being waste here.) If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

75
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 02:26:22 AM »
...
As for why work in 16-bit or 14-bit rather than 8-bit? The math used for all the various algorithms that are applied when processing is prone to introducing error. That error often ends up affecting the lower order bits most, where information is most sparse (i.e. lower midtones and shadows), although it can and will affect the entire signal. When you have only 8 bits, those errors show up more readily as artifacts. When you have more bits, you run a much lower risk of introducing processing artifacts into your images. This is one of the benefits of working in high bit depth RAW. Even the small move from 12-bit to 14-bit was actually fairly significant from the standpoint of improving the working space for all the mathematical algorithms to do their thing with RAW images without introducing artifacts.
...

So you're all in favour of more bits and more DR and you've even argued that when it gets to printing, it's no longer about DR but tonality, etc, and that the high bit depth doesn't get wasted. i.e. if your camera gave you 14bits of DR like Sony's do, you wouldn't throw any of it away but at the same time you seem happy to argue that there's no benefit from the extra DR that Sony provide.

You obviously use and take advantage of there being many more than 8 bits of DR in your Canon images (and use imaging equipment that can and does generate images with more than 8 bits of DR) yet you've also tried to argue that those printing don't need more than 8 because it will be lost when printing.

What then was the value of saying that high DR isn't required because printers can only do 8 stops of DR?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 186