July 24, 2014, 11:30:17 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 - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 171
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Reports of EOS 7D Reaching End of Life [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 10:50:41 AM »

(Another reason why the 1DX overlap is smaller than you think:  1DX users aren't looking for 90-95% as good as something -- they want the best money can buy in that format.  That separates the users pretty clearly for me.)



Very true.  The 5d3 is 95% of the 1Dx and it is half the cost.  Once you get that good it is really expensive to get just a little better.

I'd put it more at 75%.  I've shot extensively with both, indoor and outdoor sports, and with regards to AF accuracy and metering accuracy, 1Dx is winning by a fairly substantial margin.  In terms of AF accuracy I'd still put the 1D4 ahead of the 5D3, but not in ISO performance.  That and all the other things Marsu42 listed...

47
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 20, 2014, 08:35:08 AM »
Further, for everyone else who continues to perpetrate the myth that somehow the two halves of the pixels, which are under not only one microlens, but also under one color filter block, could somehow magically be used to expand dynamic range "for free" are fooling themselves, and anyone who listens to them. Magic lantern either uses two FULL sensor reads (vs. half sensor reads), or they do line interpolation for half the resolution, to achieve their dynamic range. There is no free increase to dynamic range, and DPAF isn't going to somehow allow more dynamic range for free. The problem with the idea of using one half of the AF photodiodes for an ISO 100 read, and the other half for an ISO 800 read, is that is HALF the light! That is not the same as what ML does, which involves the FULL quantity of light, or else half the light AND half the resolution.

Huh?  Please explain how reading both halves at the same gain gets you all the light but reading them at different gains gets you only half the light?  How different do the gains have to be to cut the light in half?  Is 1% enough?

What you said makes no sense to me.

The photodiodes are SPLIT. Each half gets half the light coming through the lens. It doesn't matter what ISO you read them at...if you read "half"...it's half the light. So your reading half the light at ISO 100, and half the light at ISO 800...well, you really aren't gaining anything. The only way to increase dynamic range by any meaningful amount is to either gather MORE light IN TOTAL...or reduce read noise by a significant degree (i.e. drop it from ~35e- to 3e-). Assuming it ever even becomes possible to read the photodiodes for image purposes like that, you might gain an extremely marginal improvement...but overall, there really isn't any point. It isn't the same as what ML is doing. They are either reading alternate lines of the sensor at two different ISOs, then combining them at HALF THE RESOLUTION, or they are doing two full reads of the sensor. Either way, for the given output size, they double the quantity of light. Reading two HALVES of a SPLIT photodiode gets you...ONE full quantity of light.

You're making no sense.

In all these cases, you're getting the same amount of light because you're starting with the same exposure.  The point of reading the halves at different ISOs is to reduce read noise without causing clipping.  One side ensures you get the highlights on bright pixels tthe other gives you dramatically reduced read noise on dark pixels.  When you combine them, you've effectively increased real bit depth/DR.

Of course, if the halves could both be read out at dramatically lower noise that would be even better, but this is one way to achieve that without having an improved read noise behavior.  Canon sensors have dramatically reduced read noise at high ISO, the only issue being saturation.

Nope, nope, and nope.  I usually don't get involved in these discussions because I don't need to due to jrista and neuro, but this, nope.

48
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 03:49:06 PM »
One word:  dilbertland

Do dilbertland and dxomarkland border each other ? I wonder if they have a common currency. They clearly speak the same language.

Yes, there may be 3 worlds:  Reality, DxOmarkLand, and dilbertland.  Reality is very, very far away from the 2nd and 3rd, while the 2nd and 3rd may have overlapping regions.

49
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 19, 2014, 02:13:45 PM »

Anyone that focuses on image quality always uses raw files at ISO 100 on tripod. Everything else is a compromise in one form or another.


For once you've got something right ! Bravo !




(assuming you are referring to shooting subjects that do not move..............

in good light.........

before 2005......)

One word:  dilbertland

50
Pricewatch Deals / Re: 1D X for Below US$5,000
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:06:33 AM »
It's coming up to three years old if you factor in since announcement. It would of been much sooner had it not of been due to the Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan.

Still, 3-4 years is a good timeline. I wouldn't expect Canon to drop the price to clear inventory? Has that ever happened prior to an announcement? I can't think of it ever happening before?

It definitely didn't with the 1D Mark IV, at least, not that I can remember.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 19, 2014, 11:02:55 AM »
Part of me wouldn't be surprised if this is the high MP body.

Unfortunately I wouldn't either.

52
I get into events all the time with my 400mm f2.8.  College football etc.  But I always reciprocate.  Send some photos to the team etc.

We're not talking games.  We're talking championship events.  Any sport in the United States in NCAA Division I is the same.  At championship events to get to the media areas, there are very strict guidelines, no exceptions.  I'm guessing the World Cup constitutes as a championship event. 

I'm sure if you showed up to the Rose Bowl with your 1Dx/400 f/2.8 combo, they'd just let you on the sidelines, right?  Wrong.

I want to apologize sincerely for my events not being championship enough.  And I only have a 1D4 and 5D3 so your last comment is especially difficult for me to bare.  Though my 400 has IS, so don't know if that kind of counts.

axtstern, here is a nice shot from an Islanders Game with a 200mm f1.8.  I will admit to being credentialed for this event.  Please don't hold it against me for going off topic.   I only owned this lens for about a year, selling it because I preferred my 70-200 f2.8 IS II as a partner to my 400 f2.8 IS.  The 1.8 was marvelous, but too heavy as a second lens.  I was team photographer for the 2012 season, but the team folded in 2013.
C28F0143 by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

No, not the point.  Nobody is questioning your ability or equipment.  The OP asked whether your gear specifically has ever gotten you from the spectator area to the media area, with no credentials.  I'm guessing because you are credentialed for big events, and you know the teams' SID at several schools so you can get on for regular season games, this has not been the case for you.  He's claiming he got into the World Cup media area with no credentials, which is quite a bit different from this.

53
I totally agree that the 7D2 will be a great action photography camera.  I wonder how the ISO performance will be vs. the 1D4.

54
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Ummmm....because a more modern camera may have improved ability set and track focus than a 4 year old camera?

You are forgetting the 1D cameras were not designed yesterday, they are old cameras with even older technology. Stuff improves.

Yeah, an APS-C camera that sucks at low light.  What a great camera for pro sports.
The world cup is brightly lit.....

So we make a camera that's really great at shooting the World Cup?  You missed the point.  Pros shoot both indoor and outdoor sports and no one's going with an APS-C sensor considering no pro in the world is focal length limited.  At least, none that I know.

My point isn't that the 7D2 isn't great at action, but it's not going to be good at low-light action and so it's probably not surprising at all that no one saw any pros at the World Cup using one.  I'm not surprised, that's all. 

55
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 06:11:08 PM »
We again, for the 800th time, arrive at the same conclusion.  People don't buy into DxOmark's B.S.  In fact, the sales margin between Canon and Nikon is getting wider, despite DxOmark proclaiming that each Nikon sensor is better than Canon's best sensor.  We've now stooped to the all-time low assumption that the Sony A7 is better than the 1Dx in low light/high ISO.  Anyone who shoots in the real world knows that that is not true at all.  It's not real, nobody cares, it has no real world impact.

At least DxOmark keeps me laughing during these tough economic times.  Well, tougher for Nikon anyways...LOL. 

56
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Pretty much everyone at all three each of the D1, D2, and D3 NCAA track meets had a 1Dx and 400 f/2.8L I or II IS combo, plus a 2nd 1Dx with a 70-200 f/2.8L II IS lens.  This was really dramatic compared to last year, when there was an even mix of 1Dx and 1D4 cameras, and Nikon cameras and lenses.  Majority this year was 1Dx and a supertele.  This may be a classic case of where people figure out very quickly that DxOmark scores mean absolutely nothing, they are ignored, and people get the gear that works best, especially pros.

57
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Ummmm....because a more modern camera may have improved ability set and track focus than a 4 year old camera?

You are forgetting the 1D cameras were not designed yesterday, they are old cameras with even older technology. Stuff improves.

Yeah, an APS-C camera that sucks at low light.  What a great camera for pro sports.

58
If it was going to be used, then look at low rank teams in the first pool matches. There certainly won't be any working pro's using it in the final.

If it kicks ass there will be.

Except compared to the 1Dx, it won't kick ass.

How do you know? For this application it might well.

But why? Pro sports photographers aren't focal length limited generally so what do they have to gain by using a crop body? The only advantage I could think of would be a potentially higher frame rate as the mirror and shutter is much smaller but even then 12fps is crazy quick, even 10 is a lot

Thank you.

59
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 04:13:22 PM »
Yeah, I know, it was kind of a rhetorical question to see dilbert's answer. ;)

So my answer is that you're being a troll :-P

That was not meant to be sarcastical and there's no need to insult me, I just wanted your explanation for your point of view, as I still might have understood something wrong. I would still like to hear your answer, although neuro and bdunbar confirmed me that I'm not thinking wrong. I apologize if you felt offended in any way!

There are two worlds:  1.  Reality, and 2.  DxOmarkLand

I think it is the people here that are trying to escape reality.

Logically, if we escape Reality, then we end up in DxOmarkLand.

60
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: June 18, 2014, 02:48:08 PM »
Yeah, I know, it was kind of a rhetorical question to see dilbert's answer. ;)

So my answer is that you're being a troll :-P

That was not meant to be sarcastical and there's no need to insult me, I just wanted your explanation for your point of view, as I still might have understood something wrong. I would still like to hear your answer, although neuro and bdunbar confirmed me that I'm not thinking wrong. I apologize if you felt offended in any way!

There are two worlds:  1.  Reality, and 2.  DxOmarkLand

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 171