March 03, 2015, 11:57:01 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 136
1591
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 06, 2011, 02:24:22 PM »
Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a sports camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

+1  amen

1592
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 06, 2011, 12:33:31 PM »
Just to play devils advocate with the removing the AFMA with the 60d... it is a tough recession, not just for us little people but big corporations... and when they added the AFMA they weren't deep in a recession or just starting to get into one which no one would reasonably say anyone could have predicted just how bad it would be... I could argue that the average person who had that option didn't need to spend money to have canon recalibrate their cameras/lenses and or seeked other repair options for their equipment... So perhaps while it didn't have them anything to remove it, it was a way to drive more revenue in their repair facilities? 

1593
Digital is certainly still behind film in available dynamic range.

That depends entirely on the film. Velvia? DSLRs have a much wider DR. Portra? They're not quite there yet. The others fall somewhere in between. With B&W it depends on the emulsion and processing. Some film and developer combos can yield incredible DR.

One thing you'll find is that there is usually a trade off with film, or at least with color film, between resolution and DR. Velvia can hold its own on a good scanner in terms of resolution, but has much less DR. Portra can exceed a DSLR's DR, but can't touch it in terms of resolution. The combination of resolution, dynamic range, and high ISO capability in today's DSLRs is simply unmatched in 35mm film.

In order to fully compare film you need to kinda need to consider the output of slides vs negatives... Negatives were very measurable and scrutinized because you could physically see the grain, you could see the imperfections when printed because you could see it inches from your face... That is why most pro photographers would not print 35mm higher than 8x10... even at ISO 100 film... Heck some pro's would shoot medium format for 8x10 through 20x24 and beyond.  Slides on the other hand did have higher resolutions, a lot better resolution, but those were designed to be projected onto screens much bigger than any negative would dare be projected, but then again to be fair, most people were veiwing these projections feet away from the screen so image quality breakdown was not really noticeable and "pixel peeping" as you will was not really available unless you took a loop/microscope to the film.  I wouldn't say that digital has exceeded or needs to play catchup with film... in slide terms, I would say it is pretty much on par, even though as debated in another thread regarding incamera processing and intel computer processing where we determined the incamera processing was slightly better than the intel computer processing whether it be photoshop/lightroom/aperture/etc... I think to some regards the processing abilities of digital files post capture may be lagging just a bit whcih may also affect resolution... In film you could over process/under process/cross process/do whatever and grain wasn't as affected as a digital file would be once you try to push exposure and or do special effects...

Scan your film at whatever your desired output... you can always overscan it... do whatever post production clean up work you wish and then down sample to have a buttery clean output file, but that is your call and only your call...  FYI 150DPI vs 300DPI... 300DPI is the industry standard resolution at printing... any more DPI you probably couldn't physically see any difference and some printers can print good 150DPI files, however they are the exception to the rule.  Most professional photo labs still base resolution standards at 300DPI and you really cant go wrong using 300DPI. 

1594
EOS Bodies / Re: digic 4 vs digic 5
« on: December 06, 2011, 10:13:39 AM »
Note that there are two 'flavors' - Digic5 and Digic5+.

The new Digic 5 processor is 6X faster and creates 75% less noise than the Digic 4 processor.

Compared with the predecessor, Canon's DIGIC 4 Image Processor, the Dual DIGIC 5+ Image Processor offers approximately 17x faster processing speed, and feature new algorithms that promote greater noise reduction at higher ISOs.

Neuro... in a prior thread you mentioned that the ADC creates/applies the noise whether it be analog or digital depending on ISO and the digic just processes the files to create the cleanest files possible given the situation...  Given the above statement about the digic creating the 75% less noise compared to digic 4, I'll take it that this is Noise Reduction, but would it also be an improved ADC as well to work in conjunction allowing a 75% reduction in noise or ?   

1595
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D mkII - 7D
« on: December 05, 2011, 06:13:19 PM »
If you are pleased with your 30D and t2i quality files, then the benefits of the 7D will be a huge improvement, if not in image quality but handling, AF, etc... The 5d2 is a great camera, but in low light, without using 2.8 or faster lenses, will hunt as much if not more than the 7D and the responsiveness of the 7D cannot be overstated.  ISO quality as neuro suggested is better on the 5D2 but probably not as much as one could expect, but better nonetheless.  7D would suit you well for the time being and whenever the 5d3 comes out, by all means you aim for that camera then. 

1596
From what i recall, a 6-8 MP camera can pump out a nice 8x10, which most 35mm negative B&w and color film were printed at... I've heard/seen arguments that depending on the best color slide ISO 50 film had enough detail to equate up to 24MP give or take... You should get great 8x10 prints or smaller with 6-8MP but if you got slides, you could even try upping the MP to 24 if you really want to print large, but that's your call... Digital 300 DPI vs film printing are kinda 2 separate animals but in a jumbled mess, there you go...

PS... the only reason why a lab would scan 2MP is because of speed and lack of corrections needed on the labs part to make good files.  Scanning lends to a lot of messy dust and scratches if not done with the most pristine conditions and it makes the lab look bad sending back files with white specs everywhere and retouchers time are precious unless they are billing specifically for that job, so yeah...

1597
EOS Bodies / Re: How to Lose $2400 in 24 Seconds
« on: December 01, 2011, 03:15:54 PM »
awesome... =)

1598
EOS Bodies / Re: Camera Release Model
« on: November 30, 2011, 01:58:49 PM »
One of the things why a brand new car drops several thousands of dollars when it drives off the lot is because it's now used (plus all the mark-up they add to it... )  I think if they start pumping out pro cameras every year, incremental or not, a few problems arise... A higher defect/recall/QC concern and with a more saturated market of pro cameras, it's going to drive down the price they can demand for their top cameras... when I had my 10D and when I sold my 10D, I was able to resell it for a good chunk of what I bought my new camera (at the time)... Now adays, with my 7D for instance, because the market is saturated, I could sell it for maybe a $500-600 hit if not more... and it's only 2 years old.. If there's a higher saturation in the market, fewer and fewer people would be buying new and getting used gear 1-2 years old... That could drive down prices on fewer models sold new... Plus when you tack on costs of production, research and development, etc... It probably doesn't make sense for them...

One thing I wouldn't object to is option upgrades/firmwares which could (at an owners expense/option) purchase an upgraded firmware that adds even more functionity/goodies to the camera or maybe offering cameras with basic software packages at a cheaper price and having additional add-ons/packages for new software or firmwares that unlocks certain features or expands upon the camera... I could see that more as a possibility that over-saturating the market with pro cameras...

1599
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: November 30, 2011, 10:43:51 AM »
Hi,
    IMHO, you should compare using camera with different pixel size, but with the same technology and image processing unit. My suggestion will be using 5DII and 60D as both basically use the same technology and image processing unit... the only different is the pixel size.

   Basically, took a similar image using under similar shooting condition and camera setting (should not be a problem since both are current Canon DSLR). Crop out 3479 x 2324 from the image shoot using 5DII... this should simulate a 8MP APS-C sensor (with pixel size 6.4um... a 350D using current sensor and image processing techology). Now resize the 7D 18MP to the same resolution (3479 x 2324) and compare the noise performance.

   Just my $0.02.

   Have a nice day.

Naw... then you're getting into the Full frame/crop sensor debate... crop vs crop, full frame vs full frame... 5d2 and D700 or if you want to stick with canon, 7d vs rebel xs?  Heck even the 5d vs 5d2.. but then you got 2 different generations of cameras all together... but you get my point. 

1600
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 03:39:59 PM »
** On the digic5 press release I vaguely remember a key note at reduced noise... Canon claims in the above statement that the digic processes the image, hence controlling the noise...  So it make perfect sense that the digic, if you take the statement above at face value, that the digic controls the noise better than the intel computer in this regards.

Awinphoto, yes absolutely the DIGIC processor "processes" or "develops" the image from the original read out values coming out the sensor.  It also creates the RAW file which is more than just the pixel values and is a proprietary format.  However, in terms of processing or developing an image, I believe that has more to do with producing the JPEG rather than creating the RAW file.  Good point about "if we believe" as certainly anything we read from Canon has marketing spin (not that they're lying but could be exaggerating).

The DIGIC processor only sees the output from the A/D converter... in other words it's already digitally encoded and therefore no more noise will be added (processing artifacts possibly, but again that's more about producing the JPEG).   DIGIC5 is getting quite powerful but in general an in camera processor is subject to constraints (speed, power) that the computer is not and because of this some noise reduction algorithms, etc. that are too slow for in camera use could be used in post processing allow additional tools but not less.

Other than the fact CR2 is proprietary and Canon might know things about the data in the file that a 3rd party application would not be able to access, I doubt the DIGIC processor can do anything that can't be done on a computer and even then Canon would build that functionality in to DPP.

For the most part, I get your question but to be honest, i'm not that geeky to pretend to have have that answer... I could pose a question to canon's cps reps next time we meet however i'm sure there's information there where they could tell me but then they would have to kill me.  =)  All i know is, in practice, in camera ISO boosting is cleaner than pushing in post production... I cant quite tell you why but it is what it is, for now.   

1601
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:17:46 PM »
Just to add another factor and confuse everything a little bit more!

The other unmentioned issue is that of shutter speed, and all of this will be a little less accurate if shutter speed isn't considered.  a 1/500 sec exposure and a Push, or high Iso is going to have very different results to a 5 Sec exposure.  In most cases a 1 stop on the shutter speed will not have as large an effect as a push or Iso stop, but then that assumes that you're photographing a still subject with a tripod, if it's moving and you need fast speeds it's not of as much importance, but still needs consideration in the round.

Are you referring to reciprocity and or long exposure noise referring to shutter speed?  In the past with leaf shutters there used to be wide varaitions of speeds hence you had to have your leaf lenses with shutters built in tested regularly to insure your exposure was correct (wrong exposure could add noise especially if you had to correct in developing and or printing) but I'm just trying to get on the same page here....

1602
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: November 29, 2011, 01:02:16 PM »
Please understand this was my experience with my copy i received of the lens and sometimes, it did produce incredibly sharp images, however to be fair, i would almost have to shoot a few duds to get the great focus shot... My 7D never has had problems with focus on any lens 17-40, 50mm macro, 50mm 1.4, 24-70 and 24-105, 70-200's, etc... but this one my camera gave me fits... I dont know if it's the AF focus motor that was weak or needs to be warmed up, but in the professional world, I need my gear to work when i need it to work and cant afford to miss that shot because my lens isn't warmed up.

1603
Lenses / Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L
« on: November 29, 2011, 11:54:48 AM »
I borrowed the 1.2L from canon and the 1.4 from canon before I made my purchase... I love the build and durability and USM of the 1.2L, but when it came down to practice, to me, even after MA, even after a lot of playing with it, it isn't that reliable....  On my cameras, my AF struggled with it for whatever reason... some photos would be spot on focus, and others (even after focus confirmation on) the photos were off...  It kinda gave me a weird "warmup" period where if i let the camera sit for a few moments and pick it up and start firing... the first 5-10 shots, the AF would be horrid... but once the camera and lens got warmed up the focus would target on and nail shot after shot after shot...  This was on my 7D.  I would be swayed in ruling a problem with MA if it wasn't for the fact that once it warmed up and had shots fired, it would eventually nail focus and be consistent from that point on... I also experienced problems with live view and manual focus showing focus and then taking the picture, the focus would be off... The lens just had too many quirks... the 1.4 is a lot older, archaic, clunky, sometimes hit and miss even with the halation, but it is a lot more consistent shot to shot and I frankly cant afford such a temperamental lens if I'm going to be plunking down that much money... I just feel canon whiffed on this lens even though i really did truely want to love this lens. 

1604
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: November 29, 2011, 10:07:21 AM »
I think the DPP processing looks better than GIMP.  But I'm not sure the comparison is entirely valid.  The in-camera conversion to sRAW isn't just downsampling the image.  As the image is downsampled, it's increased from 14- to 15-bit to prevent quantization error, then 4:2:2 chroma subsampled (i.e., color detail discarded).  That's done because just downsampling isn't enough file size savings for sRAW - before downsampling, the file must be demosaiced (in camera), so even downsampled, without the chroma subsampling it would be larger than the original RAW file

That's exactly what I thought... You need to seperate cameras/sensors shot at full res and then downsample so they match... maybe a 7d vs rebel?  Well maybe a lower res rebel...

1605
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Push vs. ISO
« on: November 29, 2011, 09:07:49 AM »
Meh,  I did a quick search and this is what Canon says about the current digic 4 processor:

The performance of a digital camera is largely determined by three key components: the lens, the image sensor (CMOS or CCD), and the image processor. The image sensor, which takes the light entering the camera through the lens and converts it into electrical signals, can be compared to the film used in a traditional film camera, while the image processor "develops" the image. If any one of these three components is of substandard quality, it will negatively affect the images that the camera produces. Canon, which has been making cameras for over 70 years, develops its own lens units and CMOS sensors in-house, and has for some years now also been designing its own image processors: the DIGIC digital image processors.

The evolution of the DIGIC image processor has been the result of an ongoing search for higher and higher levels of image quality and faster speeds. DIGIC 4, which Canon began using in its camera products in the fall of 2008, represents the sixth generation of DIGIC processors. Compared with first-generation DIGIC processors, device performance has improved 50-fold in the space of just 10 years.
Today's DIGIC image processor does more than mere image processing: It controls a wide range of functions and circuits, including automatic exposure control, exposure mode control, image file compression/playback control, LCD display control, and more. All of these functions are contained in a single-chip system large-scale integrated circuit (LSI), and the same image-processing platform can be used in any Canon digital camera, including the Digital ELPH/IXUS and PowerShot series of compact digital cameras, and the EOS digital SLR (single-lens reflex) camera series.

One could say that DIGIC is the "brain" of Canon digital cameras. DIGIC 4, the latest version of the DIGIC digital image processor, provides dramatic improvements in terms of image quality and processing speed. So how have these advances in processor design been achieved? We talked to four members of the DIGIC 4 development team to find out more.

** On the digic5 press release I vaguely remember a key note at reduced noise... Canon claims in the above statement that the digic processes the image, hence controlling the noise...  So it make perfect sense that the digic, if you take the statement above at face value, that the digic controls the noise better than the intel computer in this regards. 

Pages: 1 ... 105 106 [107] 108 109 ... 136