March 06, 2015, 07:35:11 PM

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 - AprilForever

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 51
571
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 03, 2012, 02:23:10 PM »
Or, how about: "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that APS-H is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."  (Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, sort of...)

I really like the ASP-C because of the reach it gives me... if they would put asp-c in a 1D body...

Exactly what I'm hoping for...but they can wait a year or so, until my gear fund recovers from the 1D X, and I'm looking to replace the 7D after experiencing 1-series AF for a while...


Me too!

Or, how about: "Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that APS-H is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive."  (Miracle Max in The Princess Bride, sort of...)

Cant say I've ever seen princess bride [/crickets chirping]...  anyways I understand the aps-c vs aps-h in terms of slightly bigger sensor, better IQ, but one of the tradeoff's for APS-C is the ability to use APS-C lenses and line up and reach... Especially since Canon has obviously shown a desire to develop this clientele and sensor size with lenses, I cant see canon abandoning that unless they make it so the lenses work on that style camera...

Go watch it!!! What would be hilarious is if Nikon came out with a 1.3/1.25 crop sensor (Although DX is 1.5)...

"Hey Inigo, are there rocks ahead?"

572
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 03, 2012, 01:53:17 PM »
The H-sensor is dead. It's an anachronism. It existed because there wasn't enough horsepower under the hood to drive a full-frame sports camera.


That's just not really true at all is it? People keep saying this like FF vs. APS-H has anything to do with "horsepower" as in computing power. Canon had 35mm SLRs that shot 10 fps so it wasn't a mechanics were fine. So, they didn't have the computing power to throw 11.6mp around at 10fps when the 1Ds first came out. But that has nothing to do with the FF sensor. And the APS-H sensor of the 1D line wasn't the reason it could shoot 8.5 and 10fps.

APS-H has it's place and I would love to see it used again in a figure camera. It's a good balance of crop, IQ, and getting to use lenses closer to their intended focal length.

It's not really 'horsepower' in the sense of data throughput.  From that standpoint, 18 MP is 18 MP, whether it's from APS-C or -H or FF, it's the same amount of data.  However, where size matters is in clearing the data from the CMOS sensor itself, which must be 'flushed' after each capture (I recall a firmware update for a camera that fixed 'ghost images' which resulted from incompletely flushing the sensor).  That may have been a limiting factor in achieving high frame rates with FF that technology has solved.

APS-H was a compromise sensor - for some, the best compromise of some crop factor for extra reach with better IQ, for others, a poor compromise between not enough reach and not good enough IQ, with the added problem of a lack of ultrawide capability with available lenses.

Fundamentally, though, I think the real reason we had an APS-H sensor was rooted in the sensor production process.  Why that size, and not some other size?  Because at the time, the APS-H size was the largest dimension that could be imaged onto a silicon wafer in a single pass - FF sensors required 3 passes, which substantially increased production costs (not so much the cost of the passes, but rather the increased QC failure rate resulting from multiple passes).  Today, I believe that FF sensors no longer require 3 passes (perhaps 2 or even 1), and that factor is contributing to the deprioritizing of the APS-H format.

Interesting technical note! I really like the ASP-C because of the reach it gives me... if they would put asp-c in a 1D body...

573
EOS Bodies / Re: Pre CES Week: Lenses, Cameras & Compacts
« on: January 03, 2012, 01:52:39 PM »
50 1.4 mk II? 50-300 ef-s? 85-300 f4 (THEY USED TO MAKE ONE!!!  :'()? 8mm ef-s? 50-150 f2 ef-s? Maybe, a 100 f2 IS? 200 2.8 IS?

574
How wis it? Post some shots!!!

575
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: January 03, 2012, 08:36:46 AM »
No one is suggesting that the 7D becomes a APS-H. What is being suggested is that APS-H is not dead and will be in the natural upgrade for the 7D - the so called 3D.
No sign of any reference about APS-H being killed off - sounds like another myth that is being perpetrated

Thanks Brian, as usual you've made some good points.

Personally I don't own an APS-C body or any EF-S glass but can empathize with the handful of xxD and Rebel owners who may feel as though they have painted themselves into a corner with a constrained upgrade path with their 100% EF-S kit.

APS-H? I've valued the format since the original 1D and currently the 1D4. Yep, I do hope it's not being killed off.

Paul Wright

I don't so much like the 7D because of EF-S... I like the reach. I like that the ASP-C sensor gets me places free, where FF and ASP-H would need a Teleconverter...

576
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 03, 2012, 08:35:02 AM »
Indeed. As he mentioned above.

I, however, don't really think we'll see asp-h soon, perhaps ne'er again...

577
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:25:34 PM »
And may the mighty engineers of Kwanon push those boundaries evermore!!!

578
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 02, 2012, 04:22:40 PM »
both are half baked for video. i say no for 7D

I've shot an Indie film with a 7D... looked great, but, the script was horrible, so, no, I won't tell you what it is, but it did look great...

579
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 02, 2012, 03:54:08 PM »
Indeed, they have said the ASP-H is dead... Long Live the APS-C!!!

580
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D sensor poll
« on: January 02, 2012, 08:45:50 AM »
Indeed. I would live ASP-C, AND more than 18MP.

581
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: January 01, 2012, 11:23:52 PM »
According to DxO dynamic ranges:

7D: 11.7 evs
5DII : 11.9evs
1D4: 12 evs
1Ds3: 12 evs

So the 7D is the bottom of the pile   ::)

If you fall for DxOMark's skewed, entirely-unrepresentative-of-real-world-use way of getting their figures...

You forget the 5D Mk II's problem with banding/pattern noise at high ISO which chews right into it's usable DR.

I have  the 7D, 5DII and the 1D4 and their tests match my observations. Are you seriously going to tell me that the 7D does landscapes better than the 5DII?, are you seriously going to tell me that the 7D does high iso better than the 5DII? Ah the banding factor - happens at an iso which is well past anything the 7D can think of.

If you have better measurements let us see them.

I don't think that's what he's saying... he's saying that they have very close dynamic ranges... there are other factors to landscape capture than just dynamic range...

For ultimate landscape image quality, get an old crown graphic and upgrade to 4x5...

582
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: December 31, 2011, 05:00:53 PM »
Who wants a 7D mk2 and not a FF 5Dmk3 with more dynamic range?
Would a 21Mpixel 7D with more dynamic range from a better sensor and digic 5 be worthwhile.
New is good, but why would i upgrade from a 60D?

The 7D has a better dynamic range than the 5DII.......And you're talking about 2 cameras that we know absolutely nothing about, but I'm guessing there won't be that much of a difference, probably less than 1 stop.

According to DxO dynamic ranges:

7D: 11.7 evs
5DII : 11.9evs
1D4: 12 evs
1Ds3: 12 evs

So the 7D is the bottom of the pile   ::)

Seems like not a lot of distance between each other in the pile... seems also that dynamic range has almost nothing to do with sensor size...

Perhaps, it has more to do with programming and other technology?

583
Lenses / Re: Videography vs. Photography Lenses
« on: December 31, 2011, 10:56:03 AM »
There's a 30-300 T2.9 zoom coming out, for a mere 45,000 bucks, if I remember right...  :)

Sounds like you need a few lenses...

The 17-50 should work for your wide...

The 70-200 2.8 and 120-300 2.8 are both considerations, but you will need a pretty good tripod...

There is no super zoom which will meet all your needs generally available... Except on broadcast cameras!!!

584
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II for Photokina? [CR1]
« on: December 31, 2011, 10:40:43 AM »
Who wants a 7D mk2 and not a FF 5Dmk3 with more dynamic range?

I love how some people feel qualified to comment on how one non-existent camera will perform in comparison to another non-existent camera.

Don't assume that FF automatically implies better DR - the Nikon D7000/Pentax K5/Sony sensor has already proven that it's a poor assumption, and I expect Canon to continue that trend.


True... true...

585
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
« on: December 31, 2011, 10:36:06 AM »
Is there anyone able to post some indoor sports photos that were taken with an APS-C camera - like 7D?

Well, I don't have sports shots taken with it, but I ran a series of test landscape shots with my 40D and 135L a few years ago (10 shots at each 1/3 stop shutter speed, incrementing from 1/200 to 1/500). I found that in order to consistently get pixel-peeper-sharp handheld landscape shots completely free of motion blur I needed to be at at least 1/400th of a second.  Don't get me wrong, I got plenty of good ones below that, but in order for me to really get it right & make it look like it was shot from a tripod almost all the time 1/400th is where I needed to be.  That may just be the way it is for me, & that's without a monopod or a tree to lean on or anything.

Now for sports with a 7D it's certainly going to be different.  Fist of all you have almost double the pixels of my 40D, but of course "acceptably sharp" will depend on your output resolution (even if you're not rock-solid at the pixel level).  In terms of acceptable motion blur & sharpness, what passes for acceptable in sports photography & landscape photography are two very different things (unless of course your clients are printing your sports shots at A3 or larger on a regular basis...).  You can really crank the ISO on that 7D in order to keep your shutter speed up, and sports shots are so much more about the moment than about the technical quality of the image.  Not saying that the images need to be less good, but you can certainly get away with a lot more.

But the biggest advantage you have vs. landscape photography is that your subjects are usually moving.  Like some other folks here have said, if your panning technique is good & you can follow the motion of the subject really closely, you should be able to cut that speed requirement down to 1/100th or so, maybe even less if you've practiced a lot at following your subjects it & really get it right (a lot also depends on the speed of your subject).

This is a matter of technique and IS...

However, for most sports photography, a minimum shutter speed is 1/500... usually, a speed of 1/1000 or more is preferable...

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 51