Messages

166

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79

« on: April 20, 2012, 02:09:49 PM »

Remarkably, that 'all Canon bodies' includes the 16 MP 1D IV.  Another conspiracy theory shattered against the cold, hard rocks of reality.

Well Done

167

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79

« on: April 20, 2012, 10:13:06 AM »

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800. Since the DR calculation that Dxo uses is not based solely on the ratio of light to dark but only those values where a signal to noise ratio is below 0dB. I wonder if by perfectly dividing those numbers they are able to achieve a lower noise floor in the shadows enabling larger dynamic range numbers on paper. Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of and the 24MP D3x and 24MP Sony A580 also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies.

Can it really be a coincidence that EVERY top body in DR happens to have a MP count that is a multiple of the 8MP that DxO mysteriously uses for all of its calculations?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape

168

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.

« on: April 20, 2012, 10:12:27 AM »

My conspiracy theory:
I wonder if DxO is purposely picking the 8MP downsize option to boost Nikon scores. All nikon cameras that receive great scores have all had multiples of 8MP as the sensor output resolution. The 16MP D7000, 16MP D4, and 36MP D800. Since the DR calculation that Dxo uses is not based solely on the ratio of light to dark but only those values where a signal to noise ratio is below 0dB. I wonder if by perfectly dividing those numbers they are able to achieve a lower noise floor in the shadows enabling larger dynamic range numbers on paper. Notice the random Pentax K5 extremely awesome DR rating also contains a 16MP sensor. I also find it interesting that the $800 16MP Nikon D5100 has an equal DR to the Phase One...hmmmmmm. The Sony NEX-7 with its 24MP sensor (multiple of and the 24MP D3x, 24MP Sony A580,  also have top spots to both $40,000 medium format cameras known their dynamic range and all Canon bodies.

Can it really be a coincidence that EVERY top body in DR happens to have a MP count that is a multiple of the 8MP that DxO mysteriously uses for all of its calculations?
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_landscape

169

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

« on: April 20, 2012, 09:18:11 AM »

I'm so surprised Canon does not offer a lens like this Tamron. Canon had a huge video base on nondslr and dslr cameras alike. Stabilization is huge for any video camera and Canon offers nothing for full frame users at f/2.8 with IS (though for some reason cropped cameras get a lens). Sony has built in IS in the cameras and Nikon has very little skin in the game when it comes to video. This would be great for stills as well. You know how awesome it would be to be shooting indoor wide detail shots of the flowers and church during weddings at ISO 100 & 1/15th second shutter. Most people don't move during weddings anyway so most of my shots are at slower shutter speeds when I have IS. This is a big downside to moving from cropped to full frame as I have a f/2.8 IS lens with equivalent focal lengths for a 7D but not for a 5D.

170

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why so much trust in DXO.

« on: April 20, 2012, 08:51:14 AM »

Most of the other tests have been closer to the techradar test than the DXO test. DxO is way off of every other test and analysis I have seen. Everyone seems to say that the D800 impressed everyone in low light (most thought it would fall apart at ISO 1600+ and it holds up much better than that) but still fell short of the Mark III. DR on the D800 is 1/2-1 stop better up to ISO 800, and most have said the Mark III handles colors better. Very radically different from the DxO conclusion. DR on the Dxo test for the D800 is really really high. No one has observed that so I wonder how they pulled that number. The way that DxO tests the low light ISO is also related to DR so i'm assuming that whatever made them conclude a 14 stop DR for the D800 is what kept the D800 ahead in low light ISO. Something is up with their DR test. The Phase One is way below the Nikon D7000 and the same as the Nikon D5100. Seriously? As an engineer myself, we are taught to make sure that are tests line up with reality, otherwise we redo our testing procedures. Since their ISO tests are based on DR, both of these tests are flawed in some way.

171

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79

« on: April 19, 2012, 12:24:59 PM »

All the DXO score tells us (if you even believe it) is that at 8MP in perfect lighting, the Nikon D800 SENSOR is a bit better in certain areas. This test should make DXO rethink their testing though as a result of the Nikon resulting in higher sports high iso results when there isn't a single photographer that would ever say that. The D800 may be impressively close, but it isn't better in photos at high ISO speeds.

What I really want to know is how the Nikon competes at 36MP...that is going to tell me what I want to know which is if it was better for Nikon to put a 36MP chip into the camera or stick with the smaller 16MP chip in the D4. The DXO result is like saying a Ferrari is worse at high speeds to a Lexus because while running the test at a top speed of 40mph, the Lexus ran smoother compared to the Ferrari. I bet my lexus would be better at towing than a F150 if you ran a test towing 20lb worth of bicycles. Try towing 3000lb and tell me which one wins. Stupid DXO tells me nothing I want to know.

172

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DX0 Mark Canon 5D MkIII Review

« on: April 19, 2012, 12:01:03 PM »

To be honest, I’m not that suprised. The biggest disappointment is banding and color blotches in the shadows even in ISO 100 and very small improvement compared to 5D II.

The only test i've seen banding and color blotches in, they took a shot underexposed, then added 4-5 stops of exposure to show the banding & blotches. I'm fine in most cases with pixel peeping, but seriously, there is no real world example to when you would need to push the exposure that far. Those kinds of tests are rubbish.

173

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: DxOMark scores for 5DMkIII out - total score 81, 5DMkII had 79

« on: April 19, 2012, 09:55:54 AM »

I expected DR to be worse than the Nikon but it should be better than the Mark II. How can they really say the D800 is the low light sports king with a straight face

174

Lenses / Re: Which 70-200?

« on: April 18, 2012, 03:38:43 PM »

I currently have a 70-200 f/4 is and am looking to upgrade... The wedding season is right around the bend...
I am looking at a 70-200 2.8 is on Craigs List for like 1300 or a NEW 70-200 2.8 IS II...
the NEW lens costs almost double therefore I would have to wait  almost a year to buy it.
 Should I wait for the II next year or upgrade to the I before the season starts?

Find a refurbished 70-200 2.8 IS II if you can to bring down the price. Canon sells them on its online store. They have coupons as well occasionally but they are hard to find. If you buy that lens, you will never want another. It will last you years. If you pick up the older 2.8, you will always be wanting the IS. Not to mention the sharpness of the version II is out of this world compared to anything else. If you already have the f/4, i'd wait until you can get the 2.8 IS II

175

Lenses / Re: Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC Available for Preorder

« on: April 18, 2012, 03:33:27 PM »

It is almost unfair to be comparing this lens to the Canon lenses because Canon doesn't even make one. I'm sure if Canon did, it would be better, but seriously if this performs even close to the 1st version 24-70 Canon, it will be a winner. Tamron has an exclusive on its hands right now...I hope they don't screw it up. I have never wanted a lens to be awesome so much in my entire life. With this Tamron joining my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, these 2 lenses would be all I ever carry. With VC it opens up many abilities with dusk/dawn landscapes, interior shots, and video where every other lens fails. And with an aperture of 2.8 it will be great in low light or for getting some nice bokeh

176

Lenses / Re: Can the new Tamron 24-70 with VC come close to Canon 24-70 MkII??

« on: April 18, 2012, 03:19:12 PM »

If it is even close to the 1st Canon 24-70 it will be my next lens. I really need a wider IS lens for video (and the many photo uses) and wanted a f/2.8 for normal use. Without the tamron, i'd be buying the 24-105 & 24-70 which is out of my price range and probably stupid. If it has reliable focus and an IQ close to the 1st Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 or Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS, I will be purchasing immediately.  Even though I tend not to do close ups with a 24-70mm lens where focus would be critical. I mostly use the 70-200 f/2.8 for that. God I hope this Tamron is a decent lens as there are really no other options.

177

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which lenses with the 5D mk3?

« on: April 17, 2012, 03:52:13 PM »

I'm waiting to check out how the Tamron 24-700 f/2.8 VC does when it comes out next week before I make my decision. I have the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II but i'm coming from a cropped camera and my wider zooms don't work with FF. I wish to bloody hell that canon put IS on their 24-70 f/2.8. I use my cameras for video on occasion and I need IS for that. It is also extremely helpful indoors and is nice to take landscapes at 1/15th of a second when a tripod is not available. A 24-70 f/2.8 with IS would have been a dream come true and been perfect for anything. If the Tamron isn't very good, i'll end up with the 24-105 f/4 IS most likely and keep a 50mm and a 28mm prime around when I need a wide aperture.

178

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5DIII same ISO performance as 5DII

« on: April 17, 2012, 12:04:57 PM »

Square Sensor? Most of my clients are moving to digital delivery now and I only expect this to increase over time. Virtually ever laptop, desktop monitor, tv, projector, and tablet (other than the ipad which is 4x3) is 16x9 and now that resolutions are increasing, many are using them to display photos and photos on high res screens look great. And while i'm not a fan of the aspect ratio for photos, it is what it is and it won't be changing. If anything, they will be going wider. I sell portrait oriented photos for prints frequently, but for digital delivery, most want pictures oriented in landscape.

As for noise, I have to agree with my fellow wedding photographers that .5-1 stop improvement is a big freaking deal (even if I secretly wish it was 2). You will get .5 stops at lease because of the gapless sensor design. I'll take whatever I can take. I'm almost always forced to shoot at higher ISO than I would like, at slower shutter speeds than I would like, and wide open at 2.8 when the shot would look better (and the lens sharper) at f/4. Not to mention, shooting at 2.8 or wider with the 5d mark II's focusing system is risky. The new focusing system allows me to shoot wider since I can nail focus at f/2.8 and wider much more often than before.

179

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 1D C suggested price!!!

« on: April 14, 2012, 02:35:46 PM »

I understand the argument that the 1D-C is for a professional market with little concern or price. But there are still several reasons this is WAY overpriced. There is already a crowded market of excellent cameras for those with deep pockets from RED, Sony, Panasonic, Canons C500, and others. Figure, Canon is merely updating an existing camera. They are not creating a new body geared for videographers, they are not adding professional audio, they are not adding nd filters, and they still lack many features pro video cameras contain. The $3000 Nikon D800 exports uncompressed HD, records 1080p video at 30fps, and the Sony A77 records 1080p @60fps as well. The only real improvements over any other DSLR is the ability to record 4k at 24fps. The fact is a DSLR sucks as a video camera by nature but due to the low price of the 5D mark II, we compromised and dealt with the missing features, lack of sharpness, crappy format, and awkward (for video) body style.

Not to mention Canon is not known for sharp video even at 1080p with the sensor only resolving around 800 lines of resolution. The test footage for the 1Dx and 5D mark iii does not seem to improve this much at all either, even with the new lower compression format. For $15000, buy a real video camera. For $4000, I would deal with the shortcomings of using a DSLR for good enough footage at a lower price. For those who have unlimited budgets, i'm not sure why they would pick this over the RED, Sony, or even the C500.

180

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 1D C suggested price!!!

« on: April 13, 2012, 08:18:00 AM »

I think Canon missed the point on this one. The DSLR video popularity was not because we all really wanted DSLRs as video cameras. They SUCK for video. No ND filters, no xlr inputs, line skipping because of 18MP sensors, awkward body styles, manual zooms, horrible focusing options, no peaking, no articulating screens, bad audio control and preamps, crappy recording formats for editing and grading, and all kinds of other stuff. The reason we all got excited is we were able to get impressive video quality from a $500 t2i and even better quality from a $2500 5D mark II with only a $400 prime lens. No one wants a pro video DSLR for $15,000 with all of the same issues like lack of ND filters, high res sensors, no xlr inputs and horrible focusing options. I'll deal with those shortcomings in a cheap camera but for Gods sake, if you are going to make a pro video camera, make a freaking pro video camera with pro video camera features. I can't believe Canon would do this as a company who makes great video cameras. 8 years ago I had both their XL1 and GL1 video cameras and they rocked for less than $3000. If you can't improve video in your current DSLR cameras without vastly increasing the price, then do what Sony, RED, and Panasonic are doing and put that awesome full frame sensor into a real video camera. I guess that is what they were attempting to do with the C300 but that camera is way over priced as well.

Guess we won't be seeing much if any video improvement on a 7D mark II, 70D, or T4i if it takes a $15,000 camera to make improvements.