April 16, 2014, 07:18:03 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 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 130
1621
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 11:37:33 AM »
If i may, the autofocus sensor receives light from the mirror so the more light hitting the mirror, the more light gets sent to the autofocus sensor... they are 2 separate sensors... the 7d DOES have a more advanced sensor, but light being light, if it doesn't receive as much light as the 5d does, it can only do so much...  In good lighting, the 7D kicks the 5d's butt every which way, but in low light, lighting becomes even more important. 

If you will, here's what I mean... the crop sensor is 1.6 smaller than a full frame sensor... a little more than half the size than a full frame sensor... Take 2 softboxes... both pumping out the same quality and strength of light... If 1 is on and the other is off, that's basically what a crop sensor is getting in light... a full frame camera would be like turning on the second softbox of light... you're not increasing any intensity of light but it's a bigger source overall 1 vs 2 and so it's more light and in terms of exposure, that's around 1 stop difference.  The full frame mirror will receive 2x the light gathered from the lens (all the light the lens can send it) and that light bounces into the AF motor.  The crop sensor still gets all that light but the mirror is smaller, sensor is smaller, and a lot of light is then wasted and not used...

1622
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 11:10:02 AM »
In low light, the 5d Mark II will allow in more light to the focus sensor

What do you mean by this and why do you think that?

Almost every review comparison, by nature of a crop sensor collect x ammount of light and the full frame allowing in more ammount of light because of the bigger sensor, everything from the viewfinder will be slightly brighter, and more light will hit the autofocus sensor... In low light, by all means the 5d is not perfect and will also hunt, but can, in some instances, get focus a tad quicker than the 7D in extreme low light situations...

1623
Canon General / Re: October 26 Event?
« on: September 27, 2011, 11:05:52 AM »
A huge direct print button hotshoe attachment.

You beat me to it... a new and improved super direct print button!!! woo hoo!!!! more buttons

1624
Canon General / Re: 5D mark II versus 7D spot focus
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:12:59 AM »
In low light, the 5d Mark II will allow in more light to the focus sensor and will get quicker focus in those situations, however there are 5d Mark II owners that complain it STILL isn't fast enough, especially compared to some competition.  The 7d will shine in better lit condition over the 5d mark II but it really is designed and geared for different audiences than the 5d mark II so take that for what it is.  If you cannot use an AF lamp, could you use perhaps an external flash to get some help from the flash infrared lamp?  Also if you couldn't use the larger spot focus or the spot plus 4 surrounding sensors?  Relying on 1 focus mode in extreme situations can be tough but using larger or surrounding sensors (not to be confused with full zone focus or the 9 point focus modes).  Lastly try using live mode with exposure compensation... assuming your exposure is set correctly, you should see the image decently on screen, set your focus point, you can either manual focus or use the live view focus, and shoot away...

1625
EOS Bodies / Re: No 5D Mark III on Novemeber 3 [CR2]
« on: September 26, 2011, 10:06:51 AM »
Any word on any other imminent Nikon announcements?  After canon dodged the bullet on the last nikon announcement with the pink mirrorless camera, they probably got the impression they could delay and take their time with DSLR announcements... If Nikon did pull their trump card and announced a DSLR with the mirrorless, then i guarantee you the 5D would have been announced the next possible release date...

1626
EOS Bodies / Re: All I Want For Christmas is a 5D Mk III...
« on: September 26, 2011, 10:02:30 AM »
Sounds like a catchy tune... perhaps someone can make a jingle of it and post it on youtube and let it go viral... lets see how quickly one is released then?  =)

1627
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Sensor Pixel Density
« on: September 21, 2011, 03:03:11 PM »
Thanks to you guys, I have a much better understanding of why a bigger sensor is better, and also why we don’t see super-zoom cameras with large sensors (because the lenses would have to be impractically large).

However, I have another sensor-related question or two:

I see a lot of complaining about the megapixel count being too high on some of the small-sensor cameras.  I can see why, as I have downloaded full resolution samples from say a 16 MP super-zoom, and the image is quite fuzzy at full resolution.  But the same picture looks quite good at my monitor’s resolution (1920 x 1080) and even zooming in a few levels.

Question 1:  If I were to set the resolution to a lower setting in the camera, would that solve the issue?  In other words would setting a 16MP camera to 10MP output produce the same image quality of a camera with a 10MP sensor assuming all other variables were the same? (yes, this is hypothetical since there probably are not two matching cameras with only the sensor pixel density being different)

Question 2: If the answer above is "no", would it be better or worse to reduce the image size in software on the computer?  (I know jpeg is destructive compression, so assuming you are not working with RAW images, I would think reducing the size on the computer would be worse since it would be going through Jpeg compression twice)

Thanks in advance for your insight.

Given that the 10MP would use the entire sensor vs a 15mp (50D) or 18mp (60D/7D) shot at a medium setting, You wouldn't get the entire goodness of the sensor... so the 10MP, in this example, would be optimum.  On a disclaimer, as far as raw sharpness goes, the 18mp 7d is not any softer than a 12mp 40D when using good lenses... The higher the MP, the more demanding it will be on the lenses, and quite frankly, it will expose the flaws and softness on cheaper/consumer grade lenses than the lower MP... The only part where the lower MP really becomes an advantage is diffraction on the lens, however between these two cameras you are looking at less than a stop difference.

Now if you were going to shoot 18MP and downsample to the same dimensions as the 10/12MP camera... the 18MP may be as good if not better because if you set photoshop to bicubic, it will come out quite nice and naturally sharpen... On tests vs the 7D and the nikon D300s, many reviews did the same thing (downsampled the 7D to match and then on the flip side up-sampled the nikon to match the 7D...)  It's not a real fair matchup but it is what it is...

What to take from this, dont fear the higher MP cameras if you can afford nice glass... Remember to invest more in your glass than your cameras and you should be fine. 

1628
Canon General / Re: Pro grade AF (not 7D like)
« on: September 20, 2011, 10:33:17 AM »
I laughed when I read that spec: "Pro Grade Autofocus (Not 7D Like)."

I thought, "Geez, I hope they don't come up with something MORE sophisticated than the 7D, it's already way smarter than I am."

I've had mine for over a year and a half now and I have to admit I still don't think I've mastered the autofocus system. No complaints about the camera, just the user.

The longer I own the 7D the more I learn about the autofocus. In my opinion it's one of the most sophisticated features of the 7D and it takes some real work to master. That doesn't mean you can't get good, sharp shots easily, it just means that if you don't use it properly, you can get misfocused shots.

I'm not saying in your case it's user error. But, I know in my case, almost all problems I've had with focus have been my fault, not the camera's.

Haha I felt the same way when I got the 7D... on prior upgrades from the 10D through 50D I felt secure and had a good grasp of how those cameras worked and the upgrade was pretty seamless, just grasping new bells and whistles and layouts from model to model... The 7D was the first camera I had to break open the users manual to learn because it was so sophisticated... 95% of my single shot photos are tack sharp with a margin of error for user error and the rest other burst shots which depending on the situation may or may not be 100% tack sharp or not.  I was able to shoot at the Reno Championship Air Races prior to the major incident which shut down the races with the 7D and 70-300 L Lens and clearly at those speeds and so close the ground, the majority out of 600+ images were acceptable focus with 1/6 being 100% tack sharp and even fewer being portfolio quality in my opinion, but that's based on other factors outside of the camera/lens... Given the tough nature of jets racing nearer the speed of sound, that's not a bad ratio in my opinion shooting in burst modes. 

1629
EOS Bodies / Re: More New Full Frame Rumors [CR1]
« on: September 19, 2011, 01:49:37 PM »
Nikon probably has a new camera planned called the Canon Killer haha.  For what it's worth, cameras at this day and age are so similar and quality is so close such as IQ between 5d m2 and D700 and 7d vs D300s... It will be interesting to see what innovations and new bells and whistles they throw in these puppies... Whether it's a revolution or evolution... I'm not getting excited until I see it in writing in form of a Press Release, however I hope it's soon... I'm not fussed too much about more MP but I want AF, IQ, and sharpness detail without having to turn sharpness up in raw or shooting modes...

1630
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
« on: September 17, 2011, 12:18:37 PM »
Well crap, I had the chance to test out this lens borrowed from Canon CPS at the Reno National Championship Air Races on thursday and spent most friday processing photos until the tragic plane crash at the races.  My thoughts and prayers goes towards those who died or were injured during the race.  (the plane crashed very near my seats I was in the day prior).  Out of respect for the event I'd doubting even showing the photos... what a terrible outcome...

1631
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS
« on: September 13, 2011, 07:14:42 PM »
I just got the lens in from Canon CPS and I will begin testing this lens... Some first impressions/observations without playing with it too much... It is short and fat... After using the 70-200 F4 IS, this thing is shorter and fatter... very beefy lens... Those used to lets say the 70-200 F2.8 weight may not be in for as much of a shock, but compared to the F4, it's definitely a beast.  You may say "well look at the specs and you will know how much it weighs... well I did... but it's still something one is never looking forward to... It doesn't come with a lens ring... one may definitely consider it because if you are rough with your gear, it may give way...

Secondly, the focus ring and the zoom ring is a tad too close together... It doesnt help that the rings are reversed from other lenses to the zoom is closer to the hood.  I dont get the reason why this is.  If you have one hand on the zoom ring, your palm is on the focus ring... so that easily could knock off focus... Compared to any of the 70-200's, you have plenty of real estate between those two rings so that isn't an issue... Not a game breaker but something I will have to get use to... From a few informal shots, it is sharp, but I will do MA and run some real world shots and post later...

1632
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 08:53:20 PM »
I'm not sure that I understand the comment about crop sensor cameras being for amateurs only.  There are tons of benefits to having them.  They are typically faster (great for sports) & they have a much higher pixel density (great for cropping).  Both of those are reasons enough to be a number one choice in many situations. 

Don't get me wrong, I want a full frame, but even with one I wouldn't always use it.  If I were taking pictures at a game I would definitely choose the crop sensor, and if I were shooting wildlife I would probably go crop sensor also.  What's the big advantage with having a full frame?  More picture?  You can get just as much picture with a crop sensor - just take a couple steps back.  Now you have a higher resolution image of basically the same thing.  Also, don't full frame cameras have issues with the edge of the picture sometimes?  They are also typical worse at handling noise right?

Either way, I'm curious to hear the reasons why FF cameras are pro cameras and everything else is for amateurs.  By that logic the 1D is basically a Rebel.

Full frame cameras can be prone to vignetting and unsharp corners in poor quality lenses but they make the most a camera can out of an EF lens. Why waste glass and only use the middle of it when you can use it all? The focal length change gives an apparent shallower depth of field as you can then get closer to your subject also. I would hate if my 50mm wasn't actually 50mm...

Another massive reason for full frame is its hands down superior noise handling. No crop sensor compares and noise reduction technologies don't count as they affect the sharpness of your image.

They both have their uses.

There are a lot of pro's for either system, however people need to realize there are professionals who shoot with what they have including crop sensors, full frame, film, and beyond... There are situations where a 7D can shine over a 5d... It's using the best gear for the situation and conditions and knowing how to use the gear to it's fullest potential that makes one a pro (and get paid for doing so)... 

1633
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 12:20:03 PM »
Seriously, those who think they "need" 21 or 24MP would have/should have moved to FF by now. All DSLRs should have FF sensors, maximize the lens mount FFS. Leave the crop sensor to the lowest-end Rebel and the so-called "large sensor compacts" .

There's a time and a place for each body type... There are those who are just learning or basically cannot afford those price brackets and has to make due with what they can get... That being said, I dont mind if manufacturers increase MP as long as they increase the quality so the image quality doesn't suffer... otherwise it was all for not.   

1634
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 12:06:33 PM »
The megapixel wars will not stop anytime soon. Setbacks and slowdowns might occur once in a while as new technologies are developed to overcome barriers but I have no doubt that we will have the same discussion at 50, 100 and 200 megapixels in the not too distant future.

That's fine as long as the image quality doesn't start to suck...

1635
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 'Rep' tells BBC that "fewer megapixels are better"
« on: September 12, 2011, 11:26:38 AM »
I think we can be getting to the peak (especially on crop sensors) in resolution... perhaps they can bump it up to 21...

Shhhhhh.  Don't tell Sony that.   :P

Haha my lips are sealed (except on this forum that is)

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 ... 130