October 30, 2014, 02:26:26 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 - Don Haines

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 226
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 21, 2014, 02:43:46 PM »
It's not really the size of the sensor that counts, it's the size of the pixel.

That's precisely back to front, Don - pixel size doesn't matter one little bit in terms of a sensor's light-gathering abilities, in any practical sense. Sensor size is the whole story, at any given "state of the art".

Jon Rista must've explained this about a million times on here - and he's completely, demonstrably right. Simply put, a big window lets in more light than a small one, whether it's made up of one pane of glass, or many - a perfect sensor analogy in this context.
So let's use a hypothetical example... and both cameras use the exact same lens...

Example 1:
You use the exact same technology to manufacture a pair of sensors. One is a 10Mpixel APS-C sensor, and the other is a 25.6Mpixel FF sensor. The pixels on the two sensors are exactly alike. Both will have the same electrical characteristics and both will have the same optical characteristics. They will have the exact same noise, the exact same ISO performance, the exact same DR..... because they are exactly the same.

Obviously, the FF sensor takes in more light, but it is spread over a wider field of view and the light per pixel is the same.

Example 2:
You use the exact same technology to manufacture a pair of sensors. One is a 20Mpixel APS-C sensor, and the other is a 20Mpixel FF sensor. The pixels on the FF sensors are 2.56 times larger than the pixels on the APS-C sensor. In this case, the FF sensor receives 2.56 times the amount of light. It's performance will be about 1 1/3 stops better than the APS-C sensor. This is your typical scenario when comparing sensor sizes.... both are near the same pixel count and the added real estate lets you make the pixels larger on FF....

Example 3:
The Sony A7S. Larger pixels. ISO409,600. nuff said...

Either way, it is the pixel size that matters....

FF does not perform better because it is larger, it performs better because the pixels are larger. The larger sensor size allows you place a similar number of pixels of greater size. It is a subtle difference.

Landscape / Re: Rural Landscapes
« on: August 21, 2014, 11:54:37 AM »
a nice quiet rural wintertime scene, with a bonus in the top of the tree....

Portrait / Re: People at work
« on: August 20, 2014, 09:11:36 PM »
Serious question:  Have you had any bad experiences taking pictures of people working?  I imagine that some workers might object.
I have never had a problem photographing people.... you ask first :) If they say yes, go for it!, if they say no, just say thanks and move on....

Animal Kingdom / Re: Tamron 150-600mm bird pics
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:17:36 PM »
I have been on holiday in Canada for two weeks, walking with my Tamron 150-600mm and 5DIII. The birds are difficult to find - you suddenly come across small birds who will be around for a few seconds or minutes and then disappear. To get any photos you need a portable, reasonably long lens that you can swing into action in seconds. The birds are often hiding in bushes and you need IS for long exposures. My 300mm f/2.8 II + 2xTC III would have been the best solution, but the Tamron 150-600mm was more than good enough and more suitable for a holiday combining a family visit with the odd day for birding. Those knockers who have dismissed the Tamron in favour of a 400mm f/5.6L + 1.4xTC would have been completely stranded without IS - one of the exposures was as low as 1/50s and many in the 1/250 range. The 100-400mm would have been too short. The exifs are on the photos, which are all 100% crops, ie 1 pixel on the image = 1 pixel on the uncropped full frame. I was pleased with the haul. Most of the photos were in the Haoomonds Plains area of Halifax NS.
The first 4: Canada Warbler 1/50s, Cedar waxwing, Black-capped chickadee, Ovenbird.

Please post images of your own from the 150-600mm Tammy.
Nice images and congrats on the skills to capture so many of them. I have never been birding at Hammonds Plain, but have been through there hundreds of times... I will have to pay more attention to it when I head back in the fall.....

Animal Kingdom / Re: Tamron 150-600mm bird pics
« on: August 19, 2014, 09:10:39 PM »
Out in the canoe tonight...and of course I had the Tamron....I spotted several Great Blue Herons and was able to get within decent range...

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 19, 2014, 01:15:51 PM »
Dear Teachers and Friends.
Well, Yes, I can take a SoSo-or Good Photos, Because of I take the photos so long time. But for the High Tech of Digital Photography, I almost know nothing a bout this New Technology.
My Stupid Question are :
1)  Are the Size of the Sensor Matter ?---Or the MP. count are matter ?
Such As  the Tiny Sensor on Nokia Lumia 1020 = 41 MP, compare to Canon 1DX  FF = 18.1 MP, and Canon 5D MK II FF = 22.3 MP
2) If the Sensor are same Size and Same MP-----The  Camera company are matter or not that can claim , My Ca--- are Sharpper than your Ni--- ???
3) What Make the Same size of Sensor ( of this Company ) to be better than another Company Sensor ?
Thanks for your Answers, That will make me up to date of new Technology.
Have a great day, Sir/ Madam.

It's not really the size of the sensor that counts, it's the size of the pixel.

Make the pixel larger and it gathers more light. With more light you get better low light performance and you get more flexibility with exposure times and apertures...

Make the pixel smaller and you get more resolving power, but at the expense of less light, worse low light performance, and less flexibility with exposure times and apertures.

In the end, it all comes down to striking a balance that the public will accept. For example, make a 2Mpixel APS-C sensor and you have 2 1/3 stops MORE low light performance than a 5D3...but is anyone going to buy it?

Obviously, the larger the sensor, the more pixels of your chosen size will fit.... but as sensors get larger, so does the size of the lens required to get the same field of view and the prices go up astronomically..

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 19, 2014, 08:06:34 AM »
The now 18 mp ubiquitous sensor first made its appearance in the 7D. Did this next appear in a xxD or a xxxD ? I'm not sure but my guess is that is was an xxD, perhaps the 60D.

In fact, it did appear next in the T2i/550D, but not until the following year, then in the 60D a few weeks later.  It's certainly in Canon's best interest to use a sensor in multie bodies across multiple lines. 

What's crazy and illogical is to take two separate facts (that the 7DII might have new sensor tech and that there hasn't been an xxxD update this year), and draw a causal link between them.  It's particularly crazy and illogical given the existence of a new 20 MP DPAF sensor that's been used in just one body to date.  Canon has made APS-C sensors used in only one body, but those have all been xxxD/xxxxD bodies, where the production volume means costs are recouped without needing to 'trickle down'.

Wrong. The 3MP APS-C sensor used in the Canon D30 was never used again.
Hey! That's what we need now...

An modern APS-C camera with 3Mpixels would have pixels three times larger than the pixels on a 5D3 and should beat it by a stop and a half for low light performance!  :)  a 2Mpixel (1920x1080) sensor would beats the 5D3 by 2 1/3 stops..... how do we get the rumour started that the 7D2 will be a 2Mpixel video optimized mirrorless wifi touchscreen monster with dual microphone jacks and integrated iPhone?

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 07:23:25 PM »

Oh, who am I kidding!?  I'm going to get drunk and cry in my beer if the 7D2 doesn't rock!   :o
I've got $2500 set aside for the 7D2.... if it does not rock, that's a lot of beer!

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:31:29 PM »
Just like the following picture proves that I have never been to Nova Scotia....

Oh, but I say it does Don! Just look at the dramatic difference in color balance. Obviously shot on a sound stage with gel covered lighting.

I work for the government. I rubbed out 13 tourists just for being in the way of my picture and nobody can find the bodies :) If you people keep trying to expose the moon landing hoax I shall be forced to make you "disappear" too.....

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 18, 2014, 06:16:23 PM »
AFMA is hard to do right. It is not a one-shot deal, it is about shifting a probability distribution onto the center, and that takes lots of readings under controlled conditions.

When you consider how many people get it wrong and how few people even bother with it on high end cameras (and those are supposed to be the "best and brightest") putting it on lower end cameras is a disaster waiting to happen. If I were Canon, I wouldn't put it on lower end cameras and would be working on an automatic AFMA scheme so that the camera could calibrate itself.

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 05:03:38 PM »
The fact that photos were edited PROVES! that man has never been to the moon. NOT!

Just like the following picture proves that I have never been to Nova Scotia....

(it has been edited)

So we ask ourselves, were the pictures of the moon landing edited for creative/artistic reasons and to remove scratches and dust, or was it to create a conspiracy that somehow 400,000 people have kept silent about for 45 years....

Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:49:01 PM »
a peaceful paddle...

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:43:43 PM »
It is absolutley true, Stanley Kubrik faked the pictures of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing in a special Studio of the CIA. Even Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig confirmed it in Interviews. How can you not believe it?

What nobody seems to get is that Stanley Kubrik filmed the whole thing in his secret soundstage on the moon....

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 No Longer in Production
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:40:00 AM »
The absence of a new lower end APS-C camera (xx0D) makes for interesting speculation that they've held off releasing a new camera because they realise there's no point in making it as the 7DII will make it seem irrelevant.


You realize that the best selling Canon camera is the T3.... and that it outsells every other camera Canon makes combined! This is because you can get the camera and lens CHEAP!. Apparently, for the masses, cheap beats IQ hands down...

So somehow a 7D2, probably for $2500 WITHOUT a lens is going to somehow mean that there will be no more demand for a $400 camera with lens, when price seems to be the dominant market force for the masses?

Are you sure of your logic?

You guys just don't know how to deal with a petulant, rather retarded child, do you ?

The 7DII is a big camera that is going to cost-a-lot-of-money, and the xxxD is a little camera that does not cost-as-much-money.

That's not a nice way to talk about Canon's cameras!

Let me put this another way. There's two parts to this.

To me it seems that it is quite likely the next xxxD will have the same sensor as is in the 7DII. If they bring it out before the 7DII then maybe they think it will eat away some of the 7DII sales from the people that have a 7D now and are just looking for a camera that produces better IQ (and not necessarily better fps/AF) whereas if the first camera that 7D owners see with the new sensor is the 7DII then they stand to get more carry over sales from people who see it and say "I WANT!" (or at least that's my thinking, feel free to point out where I'm wrong.) So new sensor in new 7D model, maximise profits from upgraders buying new expensive camera that they may not need but want.

Now had they of released a new xxxD camera a month or two ago with existing sensor technology and then a few months later the 7DII comes along with a new sensor then maybe they're afraid that sales of the xxxD will stall because people will wait for xxx+1D from Canon with the same upgraded sensor tech that is in the 7DII. That would also prevent them from releasing a new xxx+1D that uses the new tech in the 7DII in the first half of 2015 because it would be too soon between models. It won't necessarily matter what is new in the 7DII just that the 7DII will have all the new stuff and people will want the new stuff in cheaper bodies and may delay purchasing decisions because of it.

So a bigger gap between xxxD models (no real problem with sales) so that they can slot in the 7DII and roll forward with whatever new goodies (new DIGIC too?) come in that.

Sound like a reasonable plan or am I just crazy?
much better explained.... and it does sound like a possible plan, but my bet is that the next rebel (xxxD) model will come out with the same sensor as the 70D and that the delays in the 7D2 are due to problems moving to a finer fabrication line.... but this is just a guess... I have no inside knowledge. If I did have any inside knowledge I would be silent and wouldn't speculate, so it is a safe bet that all of us who are enjoying this discussion are in the same boat :)

Photography Technique / Re: APOLLO missions - image inconsistencies
« on: August 18, 2014, 10:08:06 AM »
I think you are mis-reading the intent of the original comment.

They can find evidence of the faked moon landing, but they can't dig up President Obama's Indonesian birth certificate?
Let's see ..we are talking about photos of the moon and somehow you fit in insulting our president,. Thanks for letting us know that you are stupid enough to be an avid watcher of Fox News Channel. :D

I agree... we really need a sarcasm tag :)

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 226