January 30, 2015, 12:13:38 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 230
61
Third Party Manufacturers / Review of Samyang 135/f2 vs Sony ZA 135/f1.8
« on: January 20, 2015, 08:37:21 AM »
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/Samyang-135mm-f2-vs-Sony-ZA-135mm-f18

Would be interesting to see how this holds up against the Canon 135/f2L - especially considering that it is less than half the price of the Canon lens!

62
Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 20, 2015, 08:04:36 AM »
Quote
Am I the only one who would perhaps re-write that quote to something like:
either get the left eye or the right eye in focus ... maybe?

You miss the point. If you want to shoot portraits in a distance of 2 metres you're right. But to isolate a tree in 20 metres, this is the way to go. I always hear the same "too small DOF" claims everytime... it's just a matter of your usage. The problem of this 50L f1 is the soft rendering wide open. :)

Well if you're not shooting at less than f/1.4 most of the time, what's the point of owning the less?

63
...
To me the story is told by one graphic from CIPA showing shipments over a 20 year window.  Peak film SLR sales - which had been rising year over year to that point - were 4.4 million per year in 1999.  Digital interchangeable lens cameras hit a peak closer to 20.1 million in 2010 falling to a forecast level of 16.3 in 2014.  As the market and the technology approach maturity it's likely the level will get even closer to the extrapolated film SLR growth curve (accounting for population increase, some effect due to lower operating costs for digital vs. film, and impact of incremental feature additions).  That could make the mature level closer to 12 million. 
...

Good reasoning! +1

64
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: January 20, 2015, 07:58:29 AM »
And in 6 months time, maybe that will be the debate here:

"Canon has more MP, better AF!"
"Sony has more DR, better IQ!"

... but the problem for lots of us will be that a FF sensor that performs the same as the 7D2 sensor won't represent anything new or better: there will be just more of it.

So more DR = better but more MP doesn't? That just betrays your personal preferences. Both can be better, both can be irrelevant, depending on needs.

Quantity (more MP) is not the same as quality (better MP)

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. Better isn't an objective term. For *some* people, having more pixels of even the same quality as today (however you measure it) is better.

So you're saying that if sensor A has measurably less noise and measurably more DR than sensor B then A isn't better than B from an objective point of view?

Look back - is that what I said? Not sure why I'm bothering, but just to give you the benefit of the doubt...

I am saying that if sensor A and sensor B have the SAME noise and DR but B has more megapixels, then a person wanting more pixels will call B "better".

If sensor C has fewer pixels, but better DR, noise etc than D, then someone wanting better DR and noise will choose C.

You see, you've qualified *your* definition of "better" by talking about DR and noise. That's good. But those are not the only measure of a sensor. The discussion here is about a putative new Canon sensor - if it has the same noise and DR as the current Canon sensors, but more pixels, this will be like the first example I've given above. People wanting more DR and lower noise won't see the appeal, but people satisfied with current DR and noise but wanting more pixels will. Is that clear enough? You may not believe those people exist, but they do.

That's exactly what my prediction for 6 months time says.

Image Quality is about how clean the image is, how well colours are reproduced, etc. Low noise and high DR contribute in a very direct fashion to IQ.

Quote
PS we of course all want every aspect to improve - and they may, it remains to be seen. But even if they don't, some people will like the new camera. I imagine you won't be satisfied whatever they come out with.

That depends on what Canon does deliver. There are some things that would make me happy and conversely if they aren't present then it wouldn't make me happy.

65
Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 19, 2015, 11:47:53 PM »
Somehow, I get the feeling this product was created just to see if it could be done.

It does feel like that, doesn't it?

66
Lenses / Re: The Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L
« on: January 19, 2015, 06:12:02 PM »
mmm, a lens that when used open wide means you either get a person's nose, eyes or ears in focus.

67
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 11:12:11 AM »
Original blog link:

http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/01/13/camera-ownership-on-flickr-2013-2014

Note that it is "Camera ownership" that they're reporting, not a % based on photo count.

Although where it doesn't make sense is:
2014 Top 10 Cameras (Canon): 600D -> 5D2 -> 7D -> 60D -> 5D3
2014 Top 10 DSLRs (Canon): 600D -> 7D -> 60D -> 5D3

Those two lists should align!


And in dpreview's commentary (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8277930787/apple-overtakes-nikon-for-2nd-spot-in-most-owned-rankings-of-flickr-users): These figures can be interpreted in a number of ways, and Flickr says itself they are based on frequency of posting and by counting one camera per user per week.

68
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 10:51:15 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.
...
In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

Sure, you're concerned that there could be bias in the source of the data (for example, people expunging EXIF data.)

My assertion is that the expunging of EXIF data is not specific to a particular manufacturer and that any inaccuracies in data equally effects all vendors thus the percentages and changes in them are representative of the actual market.
Which is an entirely unwarranted assertion.  Personally, I'd hazard a guess that the average smartphone photographer doesn't even know what EXIF data is, let alone how to strip it from their photographs.

Be that as it may, it doesn't impact the relative deltas for Canon, Nikon or Sony.

69
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 18, 2015, 08:13:15 AM »
More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?


I can tell you're sincere, Dilbert, but apparently you've never taken a class in statistics, even a basic one.  The word "bias" in this case is not an accusation against Flickr, it's a potential flaw in the data.  I'm not saying at all that Flickr may be biased, I'm saying the data may be biased in a way that prevents us from drawing certain conclusions.  Again, this is not a conspiratorial assertion, it's a statistical assertion.   I'll let you read the Wikipedia article on it.
...
In summary, Dilbert, Flickr's data can lead to a valid conclusion summarized as: "among all Flickr account holders who keep metadata in their images, the prevalence of cameras is given in the chart below..."

What they did NOT say, and which would NOT be true, is that they can extrapolate that to the entire camera-buying community to infer what kinds of cameras people would like to buy.

Sure, you're concerned that there could be bias in the source of the data (for example, people expunging EXIF data.)

My assertion is that the expunging of EXIF data is not specific to a particular manufacturer and that any inaccuracies in data equally effects all vendors thus the percentages and changes in them are representative of the actual market.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 17, 2015, 07:34:46 AM »
but if the sample set size from flickr is large enough (for example their entire userbase)
I think this is the problem: for the sample to have any validity at all it needs to be a representative sample.  The point I'm making is that, regardless of size, there's insufficient information in Flickr's data collection to infer beyond the Flickr user base.

Quote
So whilst all of the above issues you mention may be in flickr numbers, there is no way to account for them specifically and similarly there is no reason to expect that they would favour or disadvantage

More importantly, though, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Oh come on and quit with the conspiracy garbage will you?

Quote
In order for a statistical sample to be valid, you have to be demonstrably confident that it isn't skewed.  While the Flickr survey is interesting for what it is, it simply doesn't contain enough data, and there are too many confounding factors to allow me to exclude the risk of bias to use it to infer camera ownership and/or recent purchase.

Would you like to qualify your statements about bias risk?

And let me pose some questions for you...
- how would flickr introduce bias?
- what does flickr have to benefit from bias?
- what outcome would flickr see as a result of it being biased?

In essence, if flickr were going to introduce bias and from where I sit, I can't see any reason why flickr would benefit from bias in any of the numbers presented here.

If I were flickr and I was looking to produce biased numbers then I'd want them to make it seem like flickr was improving and growing and being better. I'd want to promote something like "2013 5.4 million active users, 2014 6.1 million active users" or some such. That sort of reporting benefits flickr in a very direct way. Reporting on the % breakdown of manufacturers doesn't really benefit flickr at all.

But that's just me. Maybe I'm special because I don't see flickr as being out to get me or Canon or Sony. flickr competes with the likes of picasa and so forth.

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 17, 2015, 07:25:36 AM »
...
I have no way of verifying this, but my suspicion is that a disproportionately large number of advanced users will both be shooting with a DSLR and that those users will be editing with software like photoshop or lightroom and stripping out the EXIF data.... this would result in an under reporting of "fancy" cameras and a large "unknown" group. This factor alone destroys the accuracy of this survey.

Only in so far as it concerns phone cameras vs fancy cameras.

Amongst the fancy camera ownership, there's no reason to suspect that any one group would use EXIF stripping more than any other group.

72
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony closing down?
« on: January 16, 2015, 02:45:44 AM »
Brick and mortar retail everywhere is in a pickle. Better to leave the brick and mortar sales to retail specialists, and concentrate on their main business of engineering and manufacturing electronics.

+1

73
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony closing down?
« on: January 16, 2015, 02:44:58 AM »
Sony has already stopped making laptops....

They announced today that they are closing all their retail outlets (The Sony Store) in Canada.

This is "interesting" behavior and does not make me confident about their future. It looks a lot more like a company that is shutting down than a "market leader"

The closing of their retail outlets is a way of admitting that the goal to emulate Apple (in the consumer space) has failed.

Sony doesn't have the cachet that Apple does and were selling products profitably before they adopted that model and I'm sure they'll continue to sell after.

Are they "shutting down"? I don't think so.

74
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 03:28:26 PM »
Wow!

So much wrong on the survey! No idea what the methodology is.... Is it counting by pictures or by owners, what about multiples, why is only 42.1 % of the cameras in the " big 5 ", how many were undetermined, what is the margin of error, what  is the sample size, what is the accuracy? 

You can't say anything significant from the results, so why bother reading conclusions from it?

Agreed. Any conclusions are made on some rather large assumptions.

When people post Amazon listings showing Canon camera sales rankings, does anyone question that? No, everyone just cares about what the ranking numbers are when in fact the same questions could easily be asked of Amazon's reporting.

Dilbert, since you seem to be sincere on this point I'll try to explain why the data from Flickr are not definitive.

First, the good: they're careful to explain what they counted: "We estimate camera ownership per-week by only counting a camera once per-account, per-week, to compensate for community members uploading different quantities of photos."  OK, that much is good

Because they use metadata from images, the method has some problems:

  • They may have more than one camera, e.g. DSLR plus iPhone.  We have no idea in what order their cameras were purchased, so we can't infer their "upgrade path."
  • The photos posted to Flickr may be different from the photos posted on their portfolio site; e.g. SmugMug or Zenfolio, e.g. casual vs. serious photography.
  • We don't know how may of the counted Flickr accounts are paid vs. free,which would likely correlate the kind of camera used.
  • We know nothing of how well Flickr users represent the broader "market" of serious photographers: are they the serious ones, or is Flickr just a step up from FaceBook?  Certainly there are some great photos on Flickr, but are they the rule or the exception?
In short, the data are "accurate" for Flickr users, but we have almost zero correlation to the greater market due to the confounding factors.  I.e., we can't use these data to tell what kinds of cameras people want.

I'm not interested in upgrade path, but if the sample set size from flickr is large enough (for example their entire userbase) then it is unlikely to favour any one specific trend above as you would expect the interference in accuracy to be the same across all cameras.

There are too many photographers on flickr for it to be "serious photographers" only.

So whilst all of the above issues you mention may be in flickr numbers, there is no way to account for them specifically and similarly there is no reason to expect that they would favour or disadvantage any particular brand(s).

Plenty of smartphones comes with preinstalled apps that makes it very easy to synchronize the images taken on the phone up to a Flickr-account. In some instances that even takes place on all images taken on the phone, whether you publish them or not. How are those photos counted? With an ordinary dSLR you have to put in some manual labour before your shots gets uploaded and visible to the general public.

Maybe that is part of why DSLR sales are suffering? Who knows. But if the above were true, why then are iPhones in the lead? No iPhone that I've ever used had flickr installed by default. But to take your point further, perhaps what we can conclude is that more Apple phone owners than anyone else go to the trouble of downloading and using flickr in order to share their images.

75
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera ownership on Flickr: 2013-2014
« on: January 15, 2015, 07:44:54 AM »
Wow!

So much wrong on the survey! No idea what the methodology is.... Is it counting by pictures or by owners, what about multiples, why is only 42.1 % of the cameras in the " big 5 ", how many were undetermined, what is the margin of error, what  is the sample size, what is the accuracy? 

You can't say anything significant from the results, so why bother reading conclusions from it?

Agreed. Any conclusions are made on some rather large assumptions.

When people post Amazon listings showing Canon camera sales rankings, does anyone question that? No, everyone just cares about what the ranking numbers are when in fact the same questions could easily be asked of Amazon's reporting.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 230