January 31, 2015, 12:57:46 AM

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 - Fishnose

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
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?

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 22, 2012, 08:19:05 AM »

   DxO said they test the sensor, but IMHO, they are actually testing the camera, because they test using the RAW file from the camera not the RAW data from directly the sensor. If the RAW file is not RAW data, then you are not testing the sensor, but how camera handle the image.

   Have a nice day.

Yes, they're testing the camer'a sensor and the part of the electronics that gets data off the sensor and turns it into a RAW image file. Nothing else is tested - not build quality, not sealing, not AF or metering, not any other functions, not anything except the sensor and the electronics directly involved in creating an image from it.
So what you say is only partly true.

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 22, 2012, 08:07:11 AM »

I love when idiots see some test, and then jump all over it.

Looks exactly like what you just did, since DXO is about sensors and not about cameras. When choosing a camera surely many other factors are to be considered, but that wasn't the point of these tests to begin with.

All your arguments make therefore little to no sense.


Maui5150, before you call other people idiots (and you actually name them by quoting), make sure you know where you're treading - so you don't step in your own turds

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« on: September 21, 2012, 12:46:23 PM »
Do you really need something like 70-200/4 to pair with 24-120/4 VR? That's only 80mm extra. Just don't be fooled by cheaper and/or better Nikon bodies. Their lenses are more expensive.

Their lenses are NOT more expensive.

People say that in reality (not lab tests, but in less than ideal conditions) D7000 AF is a real pain and it looks like D600 got the same AF system. So, think twice before you jump.

People do NOT say the D7000 has AF troubles. You thought that one up yourself buddy.

EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« on: September 21, 2012, 06:35:30 AM »
The only thing I was trying to say is that the 6D overall seems a better fit than the D600 for someone like me, who likes to walk around and take pictures of people and places and *not* spend my time pixel peeping at test patterns.

If the lenses are the only thing keeping you to Canon - think again. The Nikkor 24-120 F/4 VR is an absolutely exceptional lens. Ideal in fact even for the D800, not only the D600.
Nikkor lenses as a whole are just as good as Canon. And then we have alternatives from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina etc....

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:55:36 PM »

Define capable, and in your definition please address their evaluation of the performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, which they score lower than the MkI version of that lens.   :o

DxO have actually responded to this anomaly on their website when questioned by Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II users as to why the apparently superior mark II scores so much lower than its predecessor and their reply was that the older lens has better resolving power (@ 62 line pairs per millimeter vs 52 lp/mm for the new lens). But their website also states that there is enormous variation in resolution throughout the focal range, plus their Resolution Index scores are based on averages of multiple shots taken typically between f5 and f8 throughout the zoom range.

Clearly then, one can challenge the validity & reliability of this 'Resolution' test by conducting a similar test (they  outline in graphic detail their testing procedure) using say multiple samples (half a dozen) of each of the 2 lenses in question (to also test if copy-to-copy variation exists).

Secondly, irrespective of the first answer, what the results suggest given that the Mark II surpasses the Mark I in each of the other sub-categories (especially CA), is that their arbitrary weighting (Black Box is an apt description as they do not divulge their weighting methodology) system is heavily skewed towards 'Resolution' when computing the Overall Score.

The very fact that they place more emphasis on one single category (more so than all other sub-categories combined) is evidence that their overall score is biased & subjective. According to DxO the most impressive Canon lens in the entire EF range is the 85mm f/1.8.

What they should do is post the summary stats of all the resolution test results in a table (freq dist along with standard deviation figures) - that way we can see if it is case of some outlier or skew (to wide or tele) that is causing them to conclude that the mark I is better.

No academic journal would publish a DxO report without both Data (in an Appendix) and Methods (with a clearly defined algorithm stating the parameters for weighting each category). In the world of peer review, Black-Box methodology would simply have REJECTED stamped on it and returned.

One very good reason that resolution should be weighted quite heavily is that resolution is pretty much impossible to 'fix in the mix'. Okay, a bit of sharpening, but that's not optimal as a solution for lower resolution.

Other issues such as CA, vignetting and distortion, on the other hand, can be fixed very well. And that is precisely the business DxO are in.

EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?
« on: September 20, 2012, 03:12:32 PM »
i have lenses that cost 3000-5000 euro but i would never spend that much on a body.

So you wouldn't buy a 5D3?

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 4D reference in Wifi remote app video
« on: September 20, 2012, 03:06:28 PM »
On the other hand, if you call somebody princess Di and she obliges, I guess you can only pin so much blame on the camera...  ;)

Funnneeeeeee.....  :D

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 20, 2012, 07:40:18 AM »
The rub here is that if you're Canon and you already know that your camera's sensor isn't going to score better than anything Nikon has published then you're not going to be in any sort of rush to have it tested by DxO. I don't know if DxO purchases the cameras for themselves or waits for vendors to send them freebies...

DxO being a rather small company, I would guess they are in the position of getting access to test subjects in a few ways:
1. Manufacturer or distributor sends them a copy to test (much like magazine/web reviewers are sent copies)
2. The company buys one, as the item in question is central to their lens testing
3. Someone on the staff buys one
4. They borrow one from someone else

If none of the above fits, they don't test it.

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:57:25 AM »
That said, DxO is a complete and total joke. This is a company that ranks consumer DSLRs above medium format digital backs in IQ.

There is no rule that says a MF digital back must be better at taking pictures than a DSLR.

If the design and technology used by the DSLR is superior to that of the digital back and delivers better images then it stands to reason that the sensor can be rated above a MF back.


EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 4D reference in Wifi remote app video
« on: September 20, 2012, 05:53:20 AM »
"Although, the Japanese don’t like the number 4 all that much, as it means death" (from front page)

Oh, nonsense. If the figure 4 was unusable in Japan, how then would Nikon sell any D4 cameras?

EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: September 19, 2012, 02:27:10 PM »
Having worked with both Nikon and Canon RAW files, I respectfully disagree.  The "quality of the RAW file" includes the quality of the color.  Both RAW files have a certain color cast to them.  As I stated originally, you can post-process quite a bit, but just as some prefer the shadow recovery of Nikon RAW files, I prefer how color is captured (and corrected if necessary) with Canon RAW.  For me, I can get the right exposure most of the time so shadow recovery is less of a concern for me than getting the colors just right.  Can I post-process Nikon files and make them look great?  Sure.  For the look I want, it's less work with Canon RAW.

(And, I agree the lens matters a tremendous amount...)

1. Have you worked with Nikon RAW files from the latest generation - D800, D800E, D600, D4, D3200?
If you're talking about Nikons from 2008, forget it. Stone age, comparatively speaking.

2. "For the look I want" - ah, a personal opinion. Your taste. Well gee, that's important to us all  ::)

If only the Nikons could focus.

They focus fantastically well. So well that the D800 is excellent as a high speed sports camera (with a fast lens of course)

EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?
« on: September 18, 2012, 06:36:23 PM »
Fair, but a number of 7D users choose it not because they can't afford FF, but because they want the best APS-C SLR they can buy

May have been true 3 years ago (but probably not) - the 7D is old technology now. Almost stone age.
Nikon D7000 and Pentax K5 are waaaay ahead.

EOS Bodies / Re: Who really is the target demographic for the 6D?
« on: September 17, 2012, 06:09:13 PM »
A number of things come to mind:

1. Compacts such as mirrorless etc are getting pretty darn good and are squeezing the market for low-end DSLRs - time for Canon and Nikon to push upwards, dragging their customers with them, to more advanced and more expensive cameras.

2. Getting people into FF opens up the secondary market for higfh quality lenses.

3. Interest in photography has grown absolutely enormously since digital became the norm. This gives a far greater potential market.

4. China and other countries where buying power is increasing exponentially are extremely important. A wider range of models means more potential buyers climb on board.

Canon and Nikon don't care who buys their products. All money smells the same.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7