December 22, 2014, 12:28:16 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 5 ... 16
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:06:42 PM »
This is very wide claim that can be viewed from different angles of view. From what I´ve seen, there is SOME noise in this part, but also it is clearly able (or my eye if I look at the output) to differentiate noise and detail. There is lots of detail there.

Well it's a claim supported by a grey gradation of the red channel that starts to fall apart at 36%.

Personally, I think the Canon red channel is horrible frankly. Losing detail that early in the tonal range is not acceptable to me.

If you're ok with that then that's fine. I've put the info up there, and that's all I can do.
Thanks for the info, I'll keep that in mind next time I submit a print of the "red channel" for a galleries show.  I suspect galleries will start hanging "red channel" shots right after they begin accepting DxO curve prints.

Seriously, all of your Guitar shots look pretty nice and all seem to be acceptable -- I understand the nit picking and the relentless drive toward perfection but you have to admit that thousands of commercial photographers shoot this sort of thing day-in and day-out and somehow make nice images.  This whole discussion seems a bit silly IMO.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:25:10 AM »
I'd like to share a conversation that I recently had with a Nikon shooter.

The exchange took place on an airport shuttle bus so it was very brief. As I took an unoccupied seat across from a man and settled in with my  Canon backpack on my lap, he took notice and said "Canon man huh?"
I explained that it wasn't out of a particular loyalty but that I had gone from an X700 to a digital rebel and had never changed brands since.
He then said that he was a Nikon shooter and was thinking of switching to Canon. I assumed he must be a sports photographer because from what I have read on this forum it seems that that is where Canons strengths are. But when I asked, he said that he was in fact a professional wedding photographer.
I mentioned the glowing reviews of the new 810 with the shadow detail and skin colors etc. and asked him of his reason for considering the jump to Canon.
His reply...  "Canon shooters just seem happier".
Wow!  I thought it was my drinking that was making me happy.  Now I can finally stop and spend that money for lenses.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:53:47 PM »
Perhaps you believe everything on the Internet is authoritative?  Take Tony Northrup's YouTube "review"…in his "sports" test, which consisted of a subject walking sedately toward him, he reported a keeper percentage in the low 60s from the 5DIII.  What a joke, but I suspect you believed every word.

No. I carefully compare all the info I can get and try to draw an informed decision based on the broadest possible basis. You can see a - short - list of comparison reviews I have posted above on the AF question. I have in fact not seen a single comparison test out there that makes the claim that the 5DIII AF is better than the 810 AF. Please post as I would like to read them too if they in fact exist.

I take note of your experience. But it would be more believable if you did not feel compelled to ridicule those who have carefully documented their results and presented them for us all to evaluate. Having made many reviews myself I know how painstakingly long time it takes and how much effort goes into trying to make them as error-free as possible.

The only reason you can insult Tony Northrup is because his test was easy to follow and absolutely transparent - far above the level of what most others offer. Your counter claim here is just that - an unsubstantiated claim to be taken at face value. Hardly the best basis for such harsh words.
The Northrup review is pretty biased, IMO, a bit like his mind was made up and he was out to prove a point.  That is the trouble with most of these so-called reviews.  I can't speak too much for his AF evaluation except to say that the camera works for me and I have no issues with it.  However, his commentary on the noise performance of the camera was complete hype and just about as bogus as the best of them.  Which calls into question the rest of it for me. 

Of particular interest was his wife's comment to me in a DPR thread that she felt that she "needed" the D800 because she did night photography.  I have been doing night photography with Canon gear since the 20D and really never found it's sensor performance to be a serious limitation (as have many others -- you can find examples everywhere you want to look).  To me this looks like pure hype and is very misleading when you take a scene and say "you may have trouble seeing this so I'll zoom in to 100% and lift the exposure slider several stops so you can see it clearly".  You will notice that they didn't bother to show you what the resulting image (the full image) looked like from both pieces of equipment after that trick was pulled.  That review is pure bologna, designed to make a point and nothing more.  If you want objective reviews stick to imaging resource or DPR, good solid actionable information, devoid of the hype and bologna.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 01:30:51 AM »
...
As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda.

Once a test is done, it doesn't need to be repeated.

Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.

There is no need for repeated tests or demonstrations or examples.
Particularly when they are as stupid and meaningless as they usually end up being.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:12:26 PM »
It is hard to take any of this seriously...

Want to know what I tell people when they ask me what camera to buy? I tell them to figure out how they are going to use it, and then look for the lenses that suit their needs.... and then to worry about the body. I tell them that the lenses are a long term investment that they will be shooting with for decades, and that the camera is an expendable item that will be obsolete in a few years....
Don't try to bring logic where it clearly doesn't belong.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:12:32 AM »
What si with this rash of troll posts all of the sudden?

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:06:39 AM »
For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.

It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.

Lenses? Yes. I have owned lenses that I felt were limiting what I could do. When I felt that way, I got new or different lenses. Don't feel that way any more.

Before I had radio control strobes I felt a little limited (largely by my lack of technical skill though). Now I have 600RTs and any limitations I feel now reflect my own need to work on my skills, not on any limits of the speed-lights.

If I had to choose five or 10 things to upgrade on a camera body, the sensor wouldn't make the cut.

Why? Because all sensors from all brands and all formats are so good today that the differences are just plain insignificant. If there were truly a camera out there with a "crappy" sensor, it would be a different story. But even new cell phones have pretty damn good sensors in them.

I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who write encyclopedia-long posts obsessing over how disappointed they are because they pointed their cameras directly into the sun and didn't get perfectly exposed shadows in the foreground. That's pretty much the epitome of first-world problems as far as I'm concerned and I'm kind of embarrassed for them.
I think I would be more impressed with these sorts of photographers if they produced something artistically compelling when they did this.  I keep harking back to the infamous Fred Miranda comparison of the 5dIII and the D800 where he shot a bunch of beautiful photos in Yosemite but to demonstrate how bad the Canon was he had to go find a special scene to demonstrate it and produced a photo that was unusable for anything but his demo.  this after he proved that he could shoot such magnificent shots with the Canon equipment.

This is why I comment that most of this whole sensor argument is hype for the most part.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:00:17 AM »

All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment.  If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".
So... it would seem that what you are saying is that it is the overall "system" that matters and not only the sensor or the camera.  I don't think too many here will argue with that.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 07:30:40 PM »
Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...

And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.
if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.

i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.

a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.
All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment.  If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 02:42:19 PM »
@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

Quote
A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Quote
Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales.  The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews.  Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story.  However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.  It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration.  You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies.  I believe Canon can do the same.  Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them.  Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.  When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors.  You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.
Here is the problem with this thinking though:  The concept of an "IQ Gap" is more hype than reality.  Look at the reviews on DPR for example, they don't show much of an "IQ Gap" in fact for all practical purposes, none at all in their example images.  This is why I call it hype, it is really "much ado about not much".  Even those who try to demonstrate the so called "problem" (and we have seen this time and time again) have to resort to some extreme shadow lift test case to demonstrate their point with the resulting image being unusable for anything much beyond PI surveillance perhaps.

Your "IQ Gap",  if it exists at all, exists over a very small subset of use cases (which no doubt are important to some, but clearly are NOT important to many). 

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 02:28:59 PM »
neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.

I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level.  You may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share.  Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch to Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.
Not only that, but when he sells his stuff -- Canon gets another customer (or keeps one).  This same argument was used when Sony came out with IBIS (for example) over on DPR there were huge numbers of posts bemoaning the imminent demise of Canon (and Nikon) if they didn't immediately adopt this new "game changing" technology, yet so far we haven't seen it happen (and indeed, Sony have moved from it in a number of their offerings).

To put your summary in a slightly different way:  Canon would not be where they are if they weren't good at figuring out what their market wants.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 13, 2014, 12:29:02 PM »
Isn't a point about pop up flash and articulating screens not being on pro cameras because it affects sealing, and sealing is deemed more important than these features for pros?

maybe
That's what I always thought their reasoning to be.  But I think beyond that, they more or less expect that the people who buy those expensive, fancy bodies also have expensive, fancy lighting equipment (high end speedlights, strobes, etc.).

I remember going to a Canon event and asking this same question and the demo guy took the 1D and 5D, separated the out and said "these are our pro cameras" they don't have PU flash because we don't consider that to be a pro feature".  FWIW, he said exactly the same thing at that same time regarding Auto ISO which now DOES appear in those cameras so -- go figure :-).

43
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 10, 2014, 11:55:00 AM »
If you throw enough ideas on the wall, something has to stick eventually.  ;D

 ;D too funny, but true, I am afraid.  I think Canon is not immune from the fundamental problem though which is that the market is saturating, there are other competing alternatives like mirror-less, etc.

44
Canon General / Re: Dragonfly, Powered by Canon Lenses
« on: July 12, 2014, 11:22:25 AM »
It achieves this using ten, commercially available Canon 400mm lenses with unprecedented nano-fabricated coatings with sub-wavelength structure on optical glasses.

I only count 8.
It looks like it could hold 10.  Maybe the other two are back-ordered at B&H or had to go back to Irvine for adjustment ;-)

45
Microsoft Lawyer:  Hey Canon, we (Microsoft) have 500,673 active patents.  We're pretty sure you are in violation of several of them.  Why don't you consider taking out a licensing agreement with us.  In return you get access to all our patents and we'll never bother you again.

Canon Lawyer: What if we don't?

MSFT Lawyer:  We begin Litigation proceedings on Monday.

Canon Lawyer:  Well, OK, where do we send the check.




Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16