September 02, 2014, 06:25:25 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 152

Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better :)

Bigger is only better if the smaller thing you are enlarging more is better than the native big thing.

You are not arguing bigger is better, you are saying smaller (pixels) are as good as bigger ones, that has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be the case.

So the 1Ds and original 5D have better IQ than the current 1DX, 5D3 and 6D?

So a 70D pixel enlarges as well as a 1DX pixel?

If you look at same generation sensors on a per pixel basis bigger pixels have always performed better than smaller ones.


Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better :)

Bigger is only better if the smaller thing you are enlarging more is better than the native big thing.

You are not arguing bigger is better, you are saying smaller (pixels) are as good as bigger ones, that has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be the case.

For usable resolution it isn't even just about the system (sensor, AA filter, lens, firmware etc), that just gives you a potential resolution in best case scenario situations that most of us practically never shoot in, and require 10x Live View manual focus, optimal aperture for lens sharpness, minimum or base iso (if we take the time and trouble to work out our sensors true base iso), very good light with high contrast, very firm support, cable release etc etc.

Now that list sounds like a landscape and architectural shooters M.O., and I believe they are the only people who will get any remote chance of worthwhile resolution increases when going over 30MP in the 135 format etc. Having said that I do a reasonable amount of higher end real estate work that is regularly used in quality print advertising as well as posters and billboards and I haven't found 21MP to be a serious limitation. Peolpe who use AF, BIF, sports shooters, action shooters, most wedding shooters etc will get practically nothing from a 30+MP sensor over current models.

After some extensive testing I did with the 1Ds MkIII and the 7D (sure things are better now but they are better for both formats) in ideal shooting situations set up to maximise the difference between the 21MP sensor and the effective 46MP sensor that showed minimal resolution differences, I concluded the numbers mean very little, in real world shooting situations where I was using AF and not optimal iso and aperture settings the differences disappeared completely. In truth AF had a far bigger impact on resolution than a 21 or 46 MP sensor.

If I shot landscape 100% of the time I'd use TS-E's on an A7R where the methodology of realising the potential resolution wouldn't impact my shooting, but I don't, I am a generalist and need AF, a range of ISO's, apertures, and shutter speeds, zoom lenses, etc etc.

In conclusion, I am not saying, and never have, that a higher MP sensor doesn't resolve "more", it does, but the rule of diminishing returns kicks in for virtually all real world shooting scenarios and makes the difference so small as to be imperceptible most of the time. Having something because it has a higher number is a game I stopped playing long ago, I look very closely at what it can actually do for me, so far the disadvantages of higher MP sensors in 135 format have not convinced me that Canon don't know far more about this than us and they hit a sweet spot with the 5D MkIII. I am a long time 1Ds MkIII user, if they come out with a true replacement in the 35-45MP range I am not interested, if they come out with a 1DX MkII with a 24MP sensor I died and went to camera heaven.

I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?

And about signal noise and if the cameras  file size are compared at the same file size, there are not much to discusse, they are equal regarding higher iso. So my question  is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?

Similar questions were asked in Nikon forums prior to them using Sony's 36MP sensor and Nikon folks used all of the same arguments here that Canon guys do about why they didn't need it.

I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.

But, Nikon users had a mere 12MP in their FF cameras, the D3/D3S and the 5D MkII competition D700, until the $7,000 D3X (the 1Ds MkIII competitor).

There is a huge difference in usable resolution between 12MP and 21MP files, there is not such a huge leap between 24MP (the current 5D MkIII) and the 36MP Sony sensor.

Post a 100% crop of a problem image and I'll tell you what can be done with regular software.

PS has some very good movement deblur algorithms.

Or, for one of those thousand word thingies, ponder the why of this..........

Sure, I know CPS likely loaned all those, but weren't all those guys Canon shooters already?

Not necessarily, particularly if it is a Canon sponsored event. When the full CPS circus rolls to an event anybody with photo credentials can borrow anything subject to availability for zero cost, no CPS membership, no Canon shooter requirements etc.

But there can be no doubt that with the 1DX and the MkII superteles Canon have put the bad old 1D MkIII days firmly behind them.

Lenses / Re: I'm done - I have all the lenses I need
« on: May 23, 2014, 07:32:47 PM »
My 17 did come with the extra knob in a small bag in the box. I didn't get the funky instruction booklet though!

Tilt when focused at infinity is Scheimpflug, adjusting focus while tilted is Merklinger. Merklinger really is the key to using tilt well.

As a basic start out point a little theory makes sense, if you focus or your far point, then tilt for your near point you will get there quicker. So for a typical landscape image focus at infinity via 10x live view, then move your zoomed square to the bottom of the frame and tilt until it is sharp. That is normally all you need do unless the plane to infinity is not close to 90°, if it slopes up or down a lot from you then a focus adjustment will be needed.

For closer work the idea works again, focus for the far part you want in focus, then tilt to get the close part.

As for the amount of tilt that is needed, that all depends on how far the bottom of the camera is away from the plane of focus, if it is at eye leve, say 5',l 1° is typical with the 17 ( tilt degrees have a focal length factor, if a 17 needs 2° a 24 would need 3°) however put the 17 close to ground level, 8" or so, and you need the full 8°.

Lighting / Re: New flash for eos 6d?
« on: May 22, 2014, 10:31:14 AM »
There is no 540EX, it was a 540EZ and it only works as a dumb flash on ETTL II cameras, that is, any digital camera.

For any kind of automated use, or integration with your 550 or any other EX flash, the 540 is worthless. It would make some sense to sell the 540 and get a 430 instead, then, at least, the flashes would be the same generation with the same features, primarily auto exposure with digital bodies.

The 550EX is a very good flash, indeed it is the best bang for the buck regarding Canon flashes and I highly recommend it unless you need the radio triggering of the 600EX, but then only having one 600 is close to pointless if you already have a 550.

Lighting / Re: Old tech combined with new tech....
« on: May 21, 2014, 12:17:07 PM »
The voltage is safe, you are right in that the EZ is A-TTL, but that shouldn't stop you using the flash in manual on the PW's. You are not going to get ETTL, but you should get remote power control via an AC3.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 USM IS L (not Mark II)
« on: May 21, 2014, 10:05:18 AM »
Mark 1 is very sharp at f/4 and very useably sharp at 2.8.  The mkii is very sharp wide open and every aperture.  If you don't crop the images or pixel peep, the mk1 would do just fine.  Pics look great to my eyes but if you want them to look like the mk2, Just add a bit of contrast and color in post :) and most people can not tell.  I picked mine up used in perfect condition for $1100 last year so I couldn't get myself to justify upgrading to the mk2 for a lens I don't use that much since I have the 85.  If you're going to use it for portraiture, you don't want it razor sharp anyways and the bokeh is great on both lenses.

I really don't understand this "useably sharp" stuff, mine is razor sharp at f2.8, I have never, ever, thought, damn that would be a great image but for the fact that it isn't sharp enough. I have used mine at f2.8 on thousands of occasions and the only sharpness "issue" I have regularly is the need to lower it.

Tens of thousands of pros used the 70-200 f2.8 IS MkI for 10 years without concern, many still do, the only thing it doesn't do anywhere near as well as the MkII is the IQ when used with the 2x TC, the results from the 1.4 TC are not different enough to be compelling.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1DX camera
« on: May 21, 2014, 02:53:59 AM »
All recalibration does is measure the amount of power the battery holds at full charge, obviously as they get older the capacity decreases, this is then used by the camera to report charge levels more accurately.

The best method for recalibration is to fully charge the battery first, then take it off the charger, then put it back on and push the Calibrate/Performance button. The three lights then flash red, as the battery discharges two, then one, then none light, then the recharge cycle starts automatically if the charger is plugged in and the three lights start to go green, first one, then tw,o then when the charge is complete all three.

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: 600-ex-rt upgrade?
« on: May 21, 2014, 01:42:36 AM »
Absolutely zero chance of a 600 upgrade for years. Average top of the line EX upgrade is six years, that gives us at least four more years with the600.

Lenses / Re: a 70-200mm not focussing.
« on: May 21, 2014, 12:03:31 AM »
Absolutely don't worry about it, I had the same thing happen to my MkI years ago, mine was so bad it undid into the lens lock detent and it took an engineer to separate the two. Just use a tiny bit of lock tight to keep them tight, there won't be any damage if you haven't dropped or knocked it, the misfocus will sort itself out once they are all tight. The screws are not Phillips heads, they are JIC heads, normally Phillips won't tighten them enough, if you don't have the right screws any camera shop will tighten them up for a couple of dollars.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 USM IS L (not Mark II)
« on: May 20, 2014, 11:54:55 PM »

Many people were and continue to be happy with the Mk I, but I'd bet  that those people
1) haven't tried a Mk II,
2) can't afford a Mk II,
3) aren't any kind of pixel peeper whatsoever
4) some combination of the above

I have tried the MkII,
I can afford several,
My smallest print is 24" X 16",

Personally I use sharpness as one of many lens characteristics of varying importance, out right sharpness is rarely a serious limit and few would argue the MkII has busier bokeh than the MkI. Lenses of this class become a matter of preference that goes vastly deeper than sharpness, the MkI focuses very fast, but with the latest bodies the MkII will focus faster, for sport and wildlife shooters that can be more important than slightly less smooth oof areas, for people who don't have the latest bodies the focus speed difference is not so apparent. For portrait and wedding orientated shooters busy and distracting backgrounds can break shots and take a lot of work in post to smooth effectively, besides, brides faces don't need the sharpness of the MkI, let alone more, I often have to dial in reverse clarity or do skin texture reduction to deal with the MkI sharpness levels.

I love new toys, I have tried the MkII several times but for me and my uses it is not an upgrade, just like the 1DX isn't an upgrade from my 1Ds MkIII, sure it does a lot of stuff better, but it doesn't do some stuff as well.

Lenses / Re: Canon 70-200 USM IS L (not Mark II)
« on: May 20, 2014, 10:17:36 PM »

I have had one for over ten years, I have no plans to upgrade. The only reasonI would consider it was if I had to use TC's with it regularly.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 152