April 18, 2014, 07:48:02 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 - David Hull

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12
16
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 11:32:45 AM »
If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.

Nah.... it's not in French.

17
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:41:45 PM »
Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
Just watch. ;)

Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~2 stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images 4-5 stops in post. 

The majority of Canon devotees, at least here on CR, seem to be fairly objective about the issue.  It's widely acknowledged that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than Nikon/Sony sensors.  The fact remains that people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors.  If low ISO DR is someone's only criterion for judging a camera's performance (and for a very tiny minority of people, that may be the case), they should choose something other than a Canon camera.  But for most people, what matters is the performance of the system as a whole (camera + lenses + flashes + accessories), and that's where Canon usually wins.   As Don Haines is fond of saying, who cares how many stops of dynamic range a blurry picture has?

Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops.  Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

But for those who would like to persist in this debate, I have found a relevant example showing how an extra two stops of DR can keep the sunlit outdoors from blowing out when shooting an indoor candlelit scene...
One of the better "synopsi" of the issue that I have seen in a while.

18
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 06, 2014, 08:27:56 PM »
In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?

For the most part, it is what people do with the DxO results, their interpretations of them and the conclusions they draw from them that are the problem.  The fundamental measurements are good but to try to roll that all into one single summary number is problematic.

19
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:31:24 PM »
He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.
For what he does, the Low ISO DR difference might not be much of an issue.  He is a sports guy mostly, I think.

20
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:22:42 PM »
This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors?  ;D  ;D  ;D
He probably figured out as millions have, that whatever deficiencies the Canon sensor implementation may present, they just don't make much difference for the shots he is trying to get.

21
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 08:04:03 PM »
Perhaps they want to make sure everything works before the release it and there are no problems -- you know, things like AF that doesn't work right, AF that only works on one side of the image field, Oil spots etc.  Things like that.

Ouch !!!
Yea cheap shot, I know.  I would rather that they work extra hard to make sure it is well wrung out (whatever IT is) than release too soon -- not that I will probably be in the market for it (sounds expensive).

22
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:40:30 PM »
To paraphrase James Carville:  "It's the sensors stupid!"  If Canon was sporting a Sony sensor we are not having this conversation.  A 5DIII with a Sony A7 sensor for $2,8000 would be something really, really special.  Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors.  We can talk sames figures and long term strategy all day but Canon Cameras with Sony sensors would make it very, very hard for anybody else to compete
Except that a large share of the revenue garnered from sales of such a camera would have to pass through to Sony rather than remaining in the coffers of Canon.
In technology there is almost always a "buy vs build" decision that has to be made.  You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors.  But unless you can show that this would lead to an overall increase in retained profits for Canon, you argument lacks substance.  It is more likely that Canon has determined that they can produce a "good enough" sensor in house, efficiently amortize the R&D costs across the entire corporation to design that sensor, and retain 100% of the revenue resulting from the sales.



" You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors."
I am advocating no such thing.  What I said was : "Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors."  I didn't come down on either side.  Canon trails Nikon and Sony in only one important category....sensors...Canons are not as good.....Like I said  "It's the sensors stupid!"   CLOSE THE GAP CANON!  as for what my engineering expertise is (Masters in Chemical Engineering) is not at all important.  I am speaking as a consumer.  Why I want is a Camera with a better sensor.  I like really, really , big prints.  The Sony A7R and the Nikon D800E are much better at doing that.  I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS
Actually that isn't true -- Canon needs a better implementation of their sensor, the sensor is pretty good.  If you look at the measurements from sites like Sensorgen the 5DIII sensor has something on the order of 15 stops of DR.  And really, the only place where Canon really lags is in low ISO read noise (due to their back end electronics not their sensors).

23
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:12:18 PM »
You people act like swapping out sensors is a simple measure like, "Oh, just go get a Sony sensor, slap it in the camera like we swap out batteries, and everything will be more better."  The fact is that the sensor is just a single part of a complex camera system and must be not only developed, but designed around.  Canon would not necessarily be better off by simply going the Nikon route of buying other sensors. 

It is readily apparent that most of you have no experience with actual engineering, design and support of complex electronic systems.  It doesn't happen overnight.  One person had it right...what is selling and fielding today was begun on napkins several years ago.  All along the way, decisions are made and technology is set to produce an end product.

Canon has what it has today.  It either works for you or it doesn't.  The whole conspiracy industry on why they don't meet peoples' expectations is rather amusing.
Well put IMO.  I have often wondered just how easy it would be for Canon to drop the Sony sensor in there.  Is the electrical interface the same between the Sony sensor and the DiGiCV (or which ever)?  It seems that the Sony sensor does ADC on chip with one HS output to the Bionz DSP (me guessing).  The Canon uses multiple ADC's external to the actual sensor so the DiGiC must accommodate this sort of interface.  OTOH, they have mated up DiGiC's to sony sensors before (G11 I think).

24
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:31:39 AM »
Perhaps they want to make sure everything works before the release it and there are no problems -- you know, things like AF that doesn't work right, AF that only works on one side of the image field, Oil spots etc.  Things like that.

25
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:44:05 AM »
I have both and the 24-105 is the one I use the most.  That extra reach comes in handy sometimes.

26
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:20:59 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.
Similarly, does anyone pay $3500 for a 5DIII?  I didn't but that is still the MSRP and you can probably find a store that will sell one to you for that if you want -- heck they might even be willing to send a limo to pick you up and drive you down to the store :-).

Who cares? Even years ago before the price collapsed I didn't pay close to $1149 for it. You can get them new, for $750 EASILY now, EASILY and for $600 with just a bit of effort. Real world is what counts.

$1149 is nuts! Who pays that? Heck I got a new, from a major camera store, full US warranty, 24-70 f/4 IS for $125 LESS than that, so who on Earth would actually pay $1149 for the 24-105 these days?

27
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:15:40 PM »
A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club ;)

Do you have the USB dock that allows you to fine tune the focusing of the lens and upgrade the lens's firmware?
Do any Canon lenses have such a capability?
1.  Have you ever needed such a capability?
2.  The latest Canon lenses DO have this capability but they do it through the camera body, so you don't need to buy a separate USB gizmo to do it -- Just an expensive Camera body.  The last time I updated my 5DIII there was a lens FW update option in the menu.

28
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:08:51 PM »
Well, if the box the worth $500 to you, then get it for 1149.  It isn't to me.  And good luck selling a Canon 24-105 that you would buy for 1149 for anything close to that amount.

It's not 'the box itself' but rather 'the color of the box'.

I got mine 'white boxed' 24-105 L back in 2008 for around $900 (looks like Canon ships much-much more 6Ds and 5D III kits these days than original 5Ds in early 2008). Probably the lens build quality was also more stable in those days (since I did not hear that many complains about 'unsharp' 24-105 L and 'tested 10 copies = all were bad' then). I used the lens to complement EF-S 10-22 on 400D in my traveling lens setup and always was very happy with the results.

Since now Sigma offers it's lens for around the same $900, I wonder if I would choose this lens over Canon's back in 2008. But... No. I would not: Canon's version is smaller, lighter, it uses normal 77-mm filters and lens caps (same as 10-22).
A Rolex is more expensive than a Breitling. Is the Rolex any better?
An Armani suit is more expensive than a Bertoni suite. Is the Armani suite any better?
A Montblanc fountain pen is more expensive than a Parker fountain pen. It the Montblanc any better?
A Maserati is more expensive than a Porsche. Is the Maserati any better?
...
the world is full of items we are willing to pay more for, because it gives us some kind of value/quality/prestige/...

A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club ;)
One other thing worth mentioning is that the Canon "L" stuff seems to hold its value pretty well on the used market -- I cannot speak for Sigma since I have never tried to sell one.  For the 24-105 though, if you buy one of those "white box specials" for $700 you will be able to sell it in a couple years for darn near $700.  I remember paying $1850 for a 70-200 L IS and selling it after 4 years for $1550 (once the Mk II version came out).  I got to use it for 4 years for $300.


29
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 18, 2013, 10:05:29 AM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.
That is somewhat relevant since not the entire world is living in the countries where the street price is the mentioned above.
Yea... Most of us are comparing US prices, I think.  I certainly don't know about elsewhere and don't look.

30
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:45:47 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.

That is somewhat irrelevant since that is not what people are paying for it.  The question would be what is the actual street cost of the two lenses.

People are comparing Sigma's MSRP with Canon's street price. That seems hardly fair. A proper comparison should be between equivalent prices, so either both MSRPs or both street. If the Sigma lens is able to sustain good sales at or close to its MSRP then that's not a bad thing.
The only thing that matters is what you can get it for.  If the Canon is selling at $700 and the Sigma is selling at $850 that is the comparison, period.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 12