Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon is on top again!

« on: October 17, 2012, 04:28:05 PM »

What's your point exactly?
Yes, the 1Dx is a bloody marvellous camera, we all know that. Well established fact. And the other Canons are trailing the Nikons badly (we're talking sensors here). Also well established fact.

Sony and Nikon are leading the way and will for a while I suspect. Why is the broad range of Canon DSLRs suddenly 'back with a vengeance' just because the1Dx is great?

17

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1dx, or d800e?

« on: October 16, 2012, 12:45:53 PM »

UPDATE.
200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is good enough, at least for now.

LOL yes, your 70-200 sure is good enough.  Forget about a fixed 200 at weddings. Huge lump to carry around and very limited in all the tight corners.
And the DOF at F/2 is so short the tip of her nose will be out of focus when her eyes are focused.

That shallow DOF is EXACTLY why I want that lens. Not for candids of course, but for portraits of the couple. Like that all important photo of the couple walking hand in hand down the road...

Yes, I understood that. But the step from 2.8 to 2 isn't worth the hassle/price/weight. The D800 has a really very short DOF as it is - the high resolution adds to shallowness. And makes DOF sweeter.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 16, 2012, 05:20:15 AM »

Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.

	Nikon	Canon
Sensor:	9	7	Not much to discuss here
Lens:	8	9	Canon make fantastic lenses, but so do Nikon
Body:	8	9	To a large extent this is a matter of taste, but the Canon grips are slightly better
Flash:	7	8	Canon's new radio control beats Nikon
Metering:	9	8	Nikon metering is bloody good
AF:	9	8	Nikon beats Canon, with the exception of the 1Dx
Total:	50	49

And I think that however you look at it, both make bloody fantastic cameras.

I'm quoting myself here, just to make a point in light of the heated discussion that's been raging about 'Who has the better AF'.

When I gave Nikon 9 and Canon 8 for AF, it was NOT only about the D4 and the 1Dx. It was about all the upper end models from each make combined:

Canon: 1Dx, 5D3, 6D, 5D2, 1DS3, 1D4, 7D,
Nikon: D4, D800, D600, D700, D3x, D3s, D7000.

The 1Dx would certainly seem to be the superior allround sports and low light model. Even if Canon DR is not up to Nikon level. But that's a whole other ballgame 

19

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 15, 2012, 06:17:34 PM »

Concerning all the discussions about whether or not 8Mp is a reasonable number for the 'print' scores:

DxO say "...high-resolution sensors will gain more SNR, DR, TR and CS when reduced to a lower reference resolution. For DxOMark Sensor Overall Score and Metrics, we chose a reference resolution equal to 8 Megapixels, which is a bit less than a 12" x 8" print with a 300dpi printer. However, any other resolution can be chosen, as doing so only shifts the normalized values by a constant (because the reference resolution appears only as a logarithm in the formulas above).
What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:

    3dB to the normalized SNR
    0.5 bit to the normalized DR
    0.5 bit to the normalized TR
    1.5 bit to the normalized CS"

I'm guessing that at the time they chose 8Mp there were probably no cameras capable of anything over say 25Mp other than a couple of MF models. And many sensors were 8 or 12Mp. That's just a few years ago.

20

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1dx, or d800e?

« on: October 15, 2012, 05:27:24 PM »

UPDATE.
200 f2- nothing prepares you for how heavy and awkward that thing is. No way I would carry it around a wedding, and wouldn't be too excited about taking it along on an engagement shoot. It felt so unbalanced on the d800. That said, it produces some stunning bokeh, but for the price and especially the weight, I feel my 70-200 2.8 is II is good enough, at least for now.

LOL yes, your 70-200 sure is good enough.  Forget about a fixed 200 at weddings. Huge lump to carry around and very limited in all the tight corners.
And the DOF at F/2 is so short the tip of her nose will be out of focus when her eyes are focused.

21

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon

« on: October 13, 2012, 06:16:56 PM »

Far better to use a 10 scale. And we can drop the 'fan' thing.
I'm only considering the top end stuff - FF plus 7D and D7000.
If we we to add lower-end DSLRs, the D3200 leapfrogs everything Canon does in APS-C, except for the 'Body' category. So let's leave them out of it.

	Nikon	Canon
Sensor:	9	7	Not much to discuss here
Lens:	8	9	Canon make fantastic lenses, but so do Nikon
Body:	8	9	To a large extent this is a matter of taste, but the Canon grips are slightly better
Flash:	7	8	Canon's new radio control beats Nikon
Metering:	9	8	Nikon metering is bloody good
AF:	9	8	Nikon beats Canon, with the exception of the 1Dx
Total:	50	49

And I think that however you look at it, both make bloody fantastic cameras.

22

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 13, 2012, 12:57:23 PM »

'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT...
 
Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.

I hope you see the obvious self-contradiction in what you wrote

Wow, you don't have a clue, do you. I write that the 1Dx is "not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations".
In what way does that contradict anything else I wrote?

I'll write it again, to make sure you get it this time: Canon did not make the 1Dx to score one way or the other in any test, Canon made it to be an incredibly good camera at what it does. And Canon succeeded.

So, according to you, (i) DXOMark results are accurate (ii) Canon 1DX produces fantastic results REGARDLESS of its DXOMark scores.

This means whatever DXOMark measures is USELESS since their results have no correlation to real world results. Correct?

Wow, you really are confused. 

If the DxO figures rumored are in fact the official DxO results, then the numbers mentioned are exceptionally high and the 1Dx gets fantastic results.
Remember, DxO are testing the SENSOR - not the camera.
The camera obviously is fantastic - and, according to DxO, so is the sensor. The numbers are stellar.

That the D600 and D800 get even higher marks (for their SENSORS) has got nothing to do with anything in this situation - they're a different kind of camera.

The 1Dx is made specifically for low light work and other difficult situations. The D600 and D800 are definitely not made for this.

So - what was your point again? In what way are DxO not credible? Be specific now, explain your point with some kind of useful argument other than 'DxO is a joke' - as infared put it.
Very erudite, to say the least 

23

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 12, 2012, 05:17:23 AM »

'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT...
 
Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.

I hope you see the obvious self-contradiction in what you wrote

Wow, you don't have a clue, do you. I write that the 1Dx is "not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations".
In what way does that contradict anything else I wrote?

I'll write it again, to make sure you get it this time: Canon did not make the 1Dx to score one way or the other in any test, Canon made it to be an incredibly good camera at what it does. And Canon succeeded.

24

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores

« on: October 11, 2012, 03:46:17 PM »

DXO has no credibility.  I always look elsewhere for credible, thoughtful reviews that are backed up with examples and facts. DXO is a joke.
...hey...I just had a thought...does Ken Rockwell do the testing at DXO??? 

'DxO has no credibility'.... who says? You and a couple of others here who don't like the results they publish, and just don't understand that DxO CANNOT AFFORD TO BULLSHIT.
Ferchrissake, their test results are just a way to create a buzz around them. They are a software development company who need to test all the bodies and lenses EXACTLY so as to include profiles for them in their software. That's what they do.
And the test results are a byproduct.

Whatever.

Anyway, the 1Dx is an absolutely unbelievably good camera. It's not made to get high scores, it's made to get fantastic results in almost impossible situations, especially low light of course.
And it does that better than any other camera ever constructed.

25

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Finnish wearing on my 5D Mark III

« on: October 06, 2012, 04:19:34 PM »

Only the Finnish?  What about the Norwegian?   

My thought exactly, lol

26

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

« on: September 27, 2012, 05:34:57 PM »

In comparison to my 7D, the D800 is 2.3 stops better. Period. I don't downscale my photos...on the contrary, I tend to upscale them, so there is no benefit of any kind of the D800 above and beyond the hardware's native 2.3 stops. In comparison to the 1D IV, the difference is only 1.7 stops.

Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.

Your missing my point. I'm not saying the 7D will produce better upscales. I'm saying that upscaling a D800 image will not magically fabricate another 2 stops or more dynamic range. Dynamic range is a HARDWARE TRAIT!! Why don't people get that? The friggin sensor has an average read noise level of around 3 electrons, and a maximum saturation point (at ISO 100) of 44972 electrons. Those FACTS about the D800 sensor DO NOT CHANGE, no matter what you do with software.

Lets just screw comparisons for a moment. Let me ask a simple question:

If you photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of dynamic range with a D800...can you capture every distinct level of luminance in that scene with the D800?

Most people would say YES. Simple fact of the matter is, your 1.2 stops short!! I don't really give a damn how software wizardry, with a bit of dithering in a clever scaling algorithm can mimic a higher dynamic range when scaling my beautiful 36.3mp images down to the native size of a late 1990's DSLR. What I care about is whether I can photograph a scene with 14.4 stops of real-world DR, and GET IT ALL. Simple fact of the matter is the D800 CAN NOT DO THAT. It could capture the entire dynamic range of a real-world scene that contained 13.2 stops between its brightest and darkest points, but not one that contained 14.4 stops. If I try to capture the 14.4 stop scene, I have to give up something. Either I give up 1.2 stops worth of shadow detail, or 1.2 stops of highlight detail...or perhaps 2/3rd of a stop of both shadow and highlight detail...but the damnable hardware aint gonna capture it all. If I upscale in post, so I can print at say 40x30 or 60x40, I'm not doing a damn thing to minimize noise (on the contrary, I'm scaling noise up as well, so it's going to become more apparent...particularly on my computer screen), so the benefit of using the D800 over the 7D is...well, still 2 stops.

BTW, FYI...upscaling does NOT normalize noise...it exacerbates it because you sample the same source pixel to generate multiple output pixels. You can only produce anemic output pixels (in the destination space) that are sourced from insufficient original information. You can't average noise during upsampling (as a matter of fact, you actually distribute it.) Only when downscaling can you normalize noise, because you reference many noisy input pixels to produce a less noisy single output pixel. You sample multiple inputs, average their values, and produce a better output pixel (in the destination space) that contains rich information. Even with downscaling though, it doesn't take a particularl intelligent mind to realize you can't generate more than TWICE THE LUMINANCE RANGE (1.2 stops worth) in a downsampled image from a source image that only contains 13.2 stops to start with.

About IQ/Noise: You're agreeing with me. I said that downscaling a 36MP image will improve IQ, upscaling an 18MP image will lose IQ - and that's what you're saying too.

About DR: According to DxO, doubling sensor resolution gives 0.5 bit increase in DR.
Quoted from DxO:

" As can be seen, high-resolution sensors will gain more SNR, DR, TR and CS when reduced to a lower reference resolution. For DxOMark Sensor Overall Score and Metrics, we chose a reference resolution equal to 8 Megapixels, which is a bit less than a 12" x 8" print with a 300dpi printer. However, any other resolution can be chosen, as doing so only shifts the normalized values by a constant (because the reference resolution appears only as a logarithm in the formulas above).
What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:

    3dB to the normalized SNR
    0.5 bit to the normalized DR
    0.5 bit to the normalized TR
    1.5 bit to the normalized CS"

Incidentally, this text also addresses one of the things people scream most about - the 8MP thing. In point of fact the actual resolution chosen makes no difference, 16MP or 20MP would give the same relative values.

27

EOS Bodies / Re: POLL: How much $$$ will the high-mp eos cost?

« on: September 27, 2012, 04:24:09 AM »

All depends on whether they put it in a 5 body or a 1 body.
If it's a 5 body, price about 4K. With a 1 body, price about 7K.

28

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon sensors suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 05:18:27 PM »

In comparison to my 7D, the D800 is 2.3 stops better. Period. I don't downscale my photos...on the contrary, I tend to upscale them, so there is no benefit of any kind of the D800 above and beyond the hardware's native 2.3 stops. In comparison to the 1D IV, the difference is only 1.7 stops.

Uh, now I'm not with you. If you tend to upscale your 7D images, you REALLY need a D800. If 18MP doesn't do it then 36 is going to be a WHOLE lot better, because then you can generally gain IQ rather than lose it when downscaling a D800 image rather than upscaling a 7D image.
And DR will in fact be more than 2.3 stops better, since one gains DR with increasing resolution and vice versa. So yes, there IS a benefit of the D800.

29

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?

« on: September 26, 2012, 04:54:53 PM »

D800 complaints? Sure, plenty regarding the large MPs slowing things down, it's just unnecessary resolution for most. And of course the AF not being as stellar, and noise at high ISOs. I've seen one used Mk3 out of tons of electronic shops I've been checking out, and oh look there's a couple D800 s, and a D800E.

So where did you read about these 'problems'? On a forum I suppose.  Especially the AF one is repeated over and over....

NO, the D800 has bloody marvellous AF. Fast and accurate. This rumor is a leftover of the QC problem they had with left focus alignment in the beginning. It's gone now. Get over it.
NO, it does very well indeed with high ISOs. Not compared to a 1Dx of course, but that's not a reasonable comparison, is it.
NO, the big files don't slow things down (unless you have a shitty computer or you're a sports photographer)

As to the OP's question - 'Who said Canon cameras suck?' - Well it sure wasn't me. They're excellent cameras. Get over it.

30

EOS Bodies / Re: 46.1mp Canon DSLR Previewed at PhotoPlus 2012? [CR1]

« on: September 22, 2012, 05:56:39 PM »

Yeah, you're probably right, it could be a 4D, but the low ISO range of 100 to 12,800 and not 50 to 51,200 or 101,400 threw me. Is this going to be a $4,999 EOS 4D designed for Studio or outdoor Landscape photography where low-light is not an issue?

well i take pictures with a dslr for 7 years now.
95% of my pictures are taken with ISO under 6400.

i really don´t know what people need ISO 25600 and above.

and i wonder how these people have worked before.....

And I wonder how people got around before, when there were no cars...... yes, they got around, but it took a while and was a LOT more difficult.

Get my point?