July 29, 2014, 11:04:11 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 - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 39
346
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C
« on: October 09, 2012, 05:06:49 PM »
The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price.

Which is a very large advantage. At the risk of repeating myself: "A crop camera is the best/only way of optimizing the following combination of attributes (1) lower price, (2) higher frame rate and (3) smaller pixels (i.e., lots of "pixels per feather"). I currently own a 5D3 and 7D both of which were purchased in the last 6 months. (They replaced a 5D and 40D.) The 7D is used almost exclusively outdoors in comparatively good light with longer lenses  to photograph things that move rapidly and unexpectedly. The 5D3 is used for everything else."

Notice the word "optimizing"

All I'm saying is that most of APS-C advantages are "synthetic" and $-related. Yes, price is a very big reason and for a non-professional enthusiast like me, having more than 1 DSLR body is not an option. I'd rather have one or two more lenses. FF can do everything as good or better than APS-C, no need to have both. If 5D3 had 46mp sensor, then you could crop 18mp image out of 46mp and it would be just as good as your 7D image and much better when you don't need to crop it. I'm sure it would be possible to get 2 more fps in crop-mode, if 5D3 had one.

347
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Future of APS-C
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:41:21 PM »
The only reasonable APS-C advantage is the price. I'm talking about the camera body price only, not the whole system.

Not the reach - because, when both formats have the same pixel pitch (like D800 and D7000), we can just crop the FF image (or shoot in crop mode) and get exactly the same result as if we shot it using a crop sensor camera. I'm not a big super-telephoto fan, but my first 4 DSLRs were APS-C, just because I couldn't afford FF. If FF sensor production becomes much cheaper, then I don't see any reasons to keep APS-C other than for mirrorless (for "pocket photographers").

Not the size and weight - because of the previous reason, for telephoto you either get more resolution or more reach with the same lens, while APS-C gives you no choice, it is like crop mode only (24/7 :) ). For wide-normal angle, many zooms (like EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM) have no advantages over FF competition (like EF 24-105/4L IS USM, which is similar size, similar weight, similar price + even wider focal range, shallower DoF at f/4 than APS-C at f/2.8 + better build and weather resistance) ... EF-S 10-22USM vs 17-40L ... EF-S 15/17-85IS USM vs EF 28-135IS USM.

FPS? It is possible to shoot faster in crop mode. Nikon does that. Canon think that 7D will sell better if they don't include that feature in their FF cameras :D.

So, unfortunately, it's all about money.

348
EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 09, 2012, 10:29:10 AM »
So here it is: 5DII + TSE 24II (IMG_6396.jpg) vs. Sony Nex 5N + Contax 28/2.8 + adapter (DSC06395.jpg) -- see attached images I took mins ago.

Not a scientific test, it is not a fair test due to the sensor format, focal length (I have to walk half way closer to include the same scene/view)... So, just take look at the center resolution of the image. Don't get me wrong, TSE 24II is a terrific lens, just the 5DII sensor can't handle it.

Setup: tripod, not filter, f/5.6, iso 100, picture style "standard", manual focus using live view and in camera jpg (don't want to involve desktop software, but need to reduce the attachment size under 2 mb)

IMHO, you are doing it wrong, because you are comparing the default JPG output, which is not for someone looking for the best IQ.
My advice for a non-scientific test:
1st. You have to shoot RAW and then process both images to get the best possible result.
2nd. For FF vs APS-C, similar focal length and the same aperture will give you very different results. Try comparing 5D2 + something at 40mm f/8 vs NEX-5N + 28/2.8@5.6. You may find out that 5D2 + 24-105L at 40mm is just as good as Contax 28/2.8 on NEX-5N.

349
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Unholy Trinity of Non-L Primes?
« on: October 09, 2012, 08:13:05 AM »
For FF:
EF 40/2.8 STM
EF 85/1.8 USM
Σ 150/2.8 HSM Macro

For crop:
EF 28/1.8 USM or Σ 30/1.4 HSM
Σ 50/1.4 HSM
EF 100/2.8USM Macro

350
One step closer to FF mirrorless :)

351
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 28, 2012, 07:46:58 AM »
I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually.
My initial critique was that you seemed to care most about per-pixel performance. That may be ok if you are an engineer. If you are a photographer, one would expect you to care more about the final image than the individual pixels.

Often the two will be correlated, sometimes they are not.
Quote

The thing is - if "cows" are fine then the "milk" is fine automatically, but not 'vice versa'.
If you care about milk, then it is the milk you should care about. The cows health may affect the quality of the milk, but other factors may as well. If the shop is leaving the milk for too long outside, it may be sour. No amount of checking of the cows well-being will reveal that the super-market has a lazy milk handler.

For your reference (removed irrelevant parts):
Quote
...For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.
I care about images, not pixels. People that obsess with per-pixel image quality seems to be less interested in images that I am.
Like I said earlier, a 3 MP camera might have fantastic per-pixel performance - and poor image quality. A 36 MP camera might have mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality. If you purchase a camera in order to obsess with 1:1 displays on your screen, then by all means use per-pixel quality as a guide. If you are interested in photography for the images, I suggest using images as a guide.

-h

3mp camera with fantastic per-pixel performance won't produce poor quality images. It will produce fantastic 3mp images. Why it is so hard to understand?  :-\
If 36mp camera has mediocre per-pixel performance and fantastic image quality, then perhaps it means that you don't need 36mp for what you do. 20mp camera may be just as good and even better in term of high ISO, fps, file size, etc. Why do you need those useless, false, made-up bits of information?

352
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 28, 2012, 06:56:13 AM »
I mentioned the Foveon X3 as a benchmark for Bayer sensor in terms of resolution (per-pixel color accuracy at low ISO).

I think your falling into the same trap as most when comparing a Foveon with a Bayer. Bayer is only limited relative to Foveon in terms of color fidelity. A layered sensor design is capable of much greater color fidelity and accuracy because its capturing a full quantity of color information at every photosite. That also gives it another slight edge as it does not need a low-pass filter to eliminate color moire, since color moire doesn't exhibit. However Bayer sensors ARE detecting luminance data at every photosite, and there is no question they are capable of discerning a finer gradation of detail than a Foveon sensor...DESPITE the fact that their pixels are interpolated. I'm not sure an 18mp FF sensor is really going to be a significant edge, resolution wise, over a Foveon. But an 18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon, and for that matter more detail than a 36.3mp sensor. Similarly, a 46.1mp FF sensor is going to be capable of the same resolving power as an 18mp APS-C.

The three-fold difference in luminance resolution and a far greater number of color pixels, several stops better ISO performance, and much greater spatial resolution, even when factoring in interpolation, gives a significant edge to Bayer in this case.

I get it, you (me too; we) take "quantity over quality" ;), because it is good enough and because Foveon X3 is worse in many other ways (obviously). However, that doesn't change anything. Foveon X3 is still a benchmark for Bayer sensor resolution.
Quote
18mp APS-C sensor is going to resolve considerably more detail than a 15mp Foveon
I disagree. 15mp Foveon will give you more 'true data' of what you are shooting, because considerable amount of 18mp Bayer resolution is fake+destroyed, due to false color and AA filter. For screen, 2x2 pixel binning eliminates those problems and gives us Foveon-like quality at 1/4 of the original sensor resolution (~5mp is plenty for screen, including some cropping). For print, 15mp Foveon with 1.5-2x interpolation is an adequate competition for today's 20+mp Bayer output.
18mp APS-C is going to resolve more detail than 18mp FF? This is only true if you are measuring mp/inch, which is ridiculous, because for current level of technology 'same image resolution / smaller pixels = lower IQ'. Let's keep it at mp/image level.
I'm not sure if Foveon could evolve into something much better, but future cameras may have Bayer sensors with hundreds of megapixels and high levels of pixel binning - like 4x4 sRAW for clean Foveon-like 20+mp resolution at high ISO settings and/or higher fps, 3x3 mRAW or 2x2 standart RAW. That's my vision ;).

353
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 27, 2012, 07:37:01 PM »
It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" :). I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3.

Foveon is another area of great hyperbole in photography. An 18 MP Bayer sensor does not have "fake" resolution. There are 18 million sample points of luminance data. And a Foveon sensor does not have 3x its pixels in resolution. 15 MP Foveon has 15 million sample points of luminance data.

Foveon sensors do have more sample points of color data, and this results in better images then a mere count of MP would suggest. That can be seen and should not be denied. But it's not the night and day difference claimed by fans. Nor will they scale to match 30-40 MP Bayer images. This is the hyperbole. Go ahead and photograph a landscape with foliage using the Sigma and a D800e and see how the Sigma fares scaled to match.

With that out of the way, I wish Foveon would have had a chance with a larger and more aggressive company like Nikon or Canon. The technology is interesting. If it could have been pushed up in MP and ISO at a faster pace it might have had a much greater impact on the market. Again, it's not night and day. But it's certainly a strong edge in IQ.

I mentioned the Foveon X3 as a benchmark for Bayer sensor in terms of resolution (per-pixel color accuracy at low ISO). I'm not saying that Foveon X3 has 3x it's pixels in resolution. It's more like Foveon X3 delivers 95% of it's sensor resolution, while Bayer delivers only 30-80% of it's sensor resolution (depending on pixel size). Sigma cannot compete at ISO 400+, it's too noisy, but at ISO 100 there is a nigh and day difference compared to 18MP APS-C and even 22MP FF seems to be not quite as good. Google it ;). It does scale nicely up to 30-40MP, even if it is foliage landscape. However, D800E may have the edge, but it's not like night and day difference :).

354
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 27, 2012, 05:10:25 PM »
Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.
I care about images, not pixels....
It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" :).
Yes, that is a very good analogy.

If you are a milk-drinker, the quality of the milk will probably affect the drinking experience. The color of the cow _might_ affect the drinking experience.

So why are you saying that you care more about the cow than the milk (to follow the analogy)?

-h

I suggest you start reading more carefully. I never said that I care more about the cow than the milk. I care about both actually. The thing is - if "cows" are fine then the "milk" is fine automatically, but not 'vice versa'.

355
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 27, 2012, 04:09:31 PM »
Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance.
I care about images, not pixels. People that obsess with per-pixel image quality seems to be less interested in images that I am.

Per-pixel quality is academically interesting, but if you ever print your images or show them on a display, then that is the final indicator of quality. A 3 megapixel camera might have fantastic per-pixel quality (far better than my 7D), but who cares as long as my 7D takes better images??

-h

It's like saying "I care about milk, not cows" :). I'm talking about pixel color accuracy and fake resolution. Have a look at some Sigma DP2 Merrill RAW samples (ISO 100) and you'll see what's the difference between the real 15 megapixel resolution and the fake 18 or 22 megapixel resolution from 7D or 5D3. Properly interpolated Merrill's RAW can give you a nice 30-40 megapixel Bayer-like image.
Please don't reply if you don't care.

356
EOS Bodies / Re: Dynamic Range & Camera IQ
« on: September 27, 2012, 12:12:59 PM »
Image quality, dynamic range, high ISO noise, graphs, numbers, SNR (signal to noise ratio) ... all that makes a lot of sense when you know what it is all about. For me it's all about camera's per-pixel color reproduction performance. All the different tests are just for judging the same thing from different perspectives.
The easy answer for FF vs crop - pixel pitch. For example, 5D3 pixels (6.25 µm) are bigger than 7D pixels (4.3 µm), therefore they get more light and produce stronger signal (better SNR). 5D2 has even (slightly) bigger pixels, but the older sensor and processor technology makes it inferior to 5D3. SNR deficiency impacts false color (image noise basicaly) and false resolution of the "bayer filter" type sensor.

357
Lenses / Re: What 3 lenses do you dream of and long to own?
« on: September 27, 2012, 06:24:53 AM »
realistic set:
TS-E 17mm f/4L
MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro
EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

imaginary set:
EF 12-24mm f/4L USM
EF 35mm f/1.2L USM
EF 50mm f/2L Macro IS USM

;)

358
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II, EOS 70D & 700D in 2013? [CR1]
« on: September 23, 2012, 02:28:51 PM »
...The delays in developing the sensor was apparently a big reason for the big firmware update for the 7D...
Reading between the lines:
We would not get this firmware update, if there was no delay in sensor development. Canon would just make us pay for a new camera.
 :(

359
EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« on: September 22, 2012, 04:17:40 AM »
I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.

For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.

Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:

Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)

--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???

Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.

I thought that the purpose of the forum is to discuss, share opinions, ask, learn, advice, comment, argue, critique ... all in polite way of course ;). I know many people are not critical about their gear and they cannot give an objective advice for someone asking for it. "Buy whatever camera from whatever manufacturer and pay whatever they ask for their lenses, because they all are awesome" - doesn't help. "Want a FF camera with great UWA lens? - pick something with a Nikon 14-24/2.8G on it" - is much better. No need to tell everybody to shut up. :D

360
EOS Bodies / Re: Why I'm not jumping to Nikon
« on: September 21, 2012, 06:12:20 PM »
All of these lens comparisons forgot one thing...

Nikon 14-24/2.8 $1749
Canon nothing.

The thing is that we can use any Nikon lens on Canon body ;)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 39