December 19, 2014, 10:13:14 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 - studio1972

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
46
EOS Bodies / Re: Nikon D800 vs Canon 5d3 sample images.
« on: March 05, 2012, 06:22:30 PM »
Hope that AA filter theory is wrong, on the other side the theory is convincing. I can belive I waited so long and the camera will produce soft images due to AA filter. After I bought canon gear and worked with it for several months I knew that I had made bad decision but I hoped that 5d3 will change a lot. I don't understand guys who say that presented official samples are sharp and ok. Samples are out of detail and very soft (not mentioning the price) We need to wait.

Apparently the AA filter is weaker than the one in the 5D2, so no. Anybody who buys a camera on the basis of the example images on the manufacturers website is a prize numpty in my book anyway. Wait until some respected pros (not paid by Canon) have had a go with it first, then make your mind up.

47
You do understand that the sensor significantly needs to "outresolve" the lens to get the most of the lens?
You will gain total resolution even with the worst available lenses by increasing the pixel density in the current pixel range FF sensors are at.

I am very keenly aware of this issue seeing as I've preformed real world testing to see it's effect and I've actually run the theoretical calculations on it aswell.

Due to the extremely low resolution of Nikon's lenses they stand to gain only 8% more resolution by going from 24 MP to 36 MP for their higher end lenses. Canon's lenses would stand to gain 25% more resolution by going from 21 to 36 MP on the higher end lenses. Theoretically speaking.

snip

Can you explain to those of us less tech oriented - what you mean by saying a lens cannot "resolve 36 megapixels" ?? :) thanks

There are many ways to atempt to turn a resolution curve from a lens into a flat linear resolution. Two ways are to take the integral of the resolution curve and then average that over the area, or to take the resolution at the half way point of the area of the image and extrapolate it over the whole image. I use the latter because it's easier and the results are fairly representative result.

snip

Would you care to clarify your argument? For example, are you referring to centre or edge of frame resolution? Where are you getting your resolution figures from? I hope that as an engineer you're calculating them from MTF charts and not using the LP/PH from Photozone, as this will change for each lens based upon the resolution of the sensor that the lens is tested with.

I am using the photozone data, BUT I am using the crop frame boarder (not extreme corner) resolution data and extrapolating it to the full frame data. This essentially mimics a 40 megapixel sensor at the half way point of the frame which is an extremely accurate way of measuring considering we're dealing with a 36 MP sensor. Most of Nikon's lenses are barley resolving two thirds the resolution at this point so it's safe to say that they wouldn't take advantage of 36 megapixels over the majority of the frame.

FWIW, I much prefer the 5D3 specs to the D800, but I doubt your claims about the resolution on the Nikon being effectively useless, and I also doubt the benefit in spending hours crunching the numbers.

48
I could fly to the US, have a mini holiday in New York and pick up the 5DMKIII for the same price as buying it in the UK.

Question - Has anyone ever done this and how did they avoid customs?

Seems like a pretty tempting idea!

As long as it's just 1 camera, surely there would be no problem (practically speaking rather than legally), tourists do tend to carry cameras around with them after all.

49
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Full Spec List?
« on: March 01, 2012, 10:25:44 AM »
Will the new 5dmk3 be able to record more than 12min?

Probably not, has something to do with a weird european tax thingy and laws that state that a videocamera starts from 12 minutes continuous recording.


its a 30 minute limit...

How do you know?

The 30 minutes is the EU legislation that applies an extra camcorder tax if it can record for longer than that. The current time limit (12 mins) is actually due to the maximum fils size limit on the CF card being 4GB. Camcorders get around this by spanning several files in one recording.

50
EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]
« on: February 14, 2012, 06:07:46 AM »
Would that bring the 70D pricing up to where the 7D is now (and considerably higher at introduction of course)?

Probably similar to the old 50d/40d which was in-between the 7d and 60d. The 60d was a downgrade from the 50d in many ways.

51
EOS Bodies / Re: A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]
« on: December 07, 2011, 04:51:01 PM »
This rumour sounds like a bad move for Canon. They have a great sensor from the 1DX and decent AF from the 7D. Simply combining these two would be a winning combo and make it a great upgrade from the 5D2.

30+ MP means higher cost, real world ISO similar to the 5D2, and huge RAW files. This will only apeal to a niche crowd and the like of wedding photographers will just stick with the 5D2 IMHO.

52
EOS Bodies / Re: New EF Mount Video Camaera in October? [CR1]
« on: September 02, 2011, 05:20:47 AM »
Why you need FF, if HD is just 1920×1080 or approx 2,1MPx?

Because the camera probably won't record as 1920 x 1080. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_Video_Format

Actually the main reason for full frame would be to make better use of L lenses and allow shallower DoF and better low light performance.

53
Lenses / Re: EF 50 f/1.4 II & EF 50 f/1.8 III [CR2]
« on: May 20, 2011, 03:53:09 AM »
I doubt it.  The 50/1.2L is not that old (released in 2007), and was itself an update of sorts, from the 50mm f/1.0L (released in 1989, and still shows up on the used market occasionally for $3-4K).  The other two current 50mm standard primes are from the early 90's.

Why did you tell me about this lens...you just cost me an extra $3000.  Thanks.  :)

I did not know the f/1.0 existed, but for the night time pictures I take, it might be the right lens.

The 1.2 is a much better lens from what I've heard, the 1.0 is more of a collectors lens.

54
Software & Accessories / Re: Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 07:53:45 PM »
Thanks for the review Sarah.

I was unaware of this product, but after reading about the rotating shoe, I'm very interested. It seems like that alone would make this worthwhile for a 7D owner like myself (Use the built-in flash trigger under most circumstances, but have the Yongnuo available when the setup is wrong for the on-camera trigger).

Yes, that's one of may favourite features. It works quite nicely, turning smoothly with notches at various angles. I've been looking again at the strength of the beam, and it flashes a lot brighter than the canon, which itself is brighter than the 7D I suspect. So that should help you outdoors I think.

55
Software & Accessories / Re: Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 02:14:47 PM »
I tried the eneloops and also some Costco alkaline batteries, same result with both. The eneloops are recommended in Syl Arena's book which is why I use them, but maybe there are better ones out there. The 2CR5 in the canon unit is 6V however, and as it is a lithium battery, I guess it probably has more oomph than NiMH.

56
Software & Accessories / Yongnuo ST-E2 vs Canon ST-E2
« on: March 24, 2011, 10:55:52 AM »
I've put together a short review of the Yongnuo ST-E2 in comparison to the Canon unit on my blog. I found the recycling time on the Yongnuo to be slower than the Canon unit, which is a problem. Otherwise, it's a nice piece of kit however:

http://sarahmcdonnell.co.uk/photo-gear/yongnuo-st-e2-speedlite-transmitter-review/

57
Software & Accessories / Re: Which flash; Canon 580EX II or 430EX II
« on: March 23, 2011, 04:44:58 PM »
always go with the biggest and best :)

you will be glad you did in the long run

I've had a 430 EX (previous version to EXII) and 580EXII for about 3 years. Both have been used heavily, and I would say the 430 has been more reliable. If you really need more power, you van always get 2 430s for about the same price as a 580.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: The 7d with an aps-h sensor!!!!!!!!
« on: March 01, 2011, 05:43:10 PM »
If the next generation 1D is FF, then moving the 7DMk2 to APS-H almost makes sense.

If the next 1D isn't APS-H, then it makes even less sense.  A one off sensor is an expensive luxury on a $5k camera,  and a non-starter on a $1300 camera.

I wouldn't expect an upmarket APS-H 7DMk2 to cost $1300. $3000+ seems more realistic. Also, why is a "one off sensor" untenable? If the non-recurring design costs for the unique APS-H sensor are $1 million and the production run is 10,000 units, the cost per unit is only $100. I would expect that to be swamped by the additional recurring cost due to an APS-H sensor being larger than an APS-C sensor.

With the xxD series becoming consumer cameras now, the 7D is the cheapest semi-pro body available. I think the next one will have better high ISO, and not much else new (maybe an articulated screen). The price will not change much as they need to have an affordable semi pro 1.6 crop body.

59
Lenses / Re: EF-S 15-60 f/2.8 IS [CR1]
« on: February 11, 2011, 06:05:33 PM »
A 4x zoom at a fixed f2.8 would be record-setting if I have my facts straight:

1.45x = 11-16mm (tokina APS-C)
1.71x = 14-24mm (nikon)
1.75x = 16-35mm (tokina)
2.06x = 17-35mm
2.19x = 16-35mm
2.50x = 28-70mm, 80-200mm, 120-300mm (sigma), 200-500mm (sigma monster)
2.68x = 28-75mm (tamron)
2.77x = 90-250mm (olympus 4/3), 18-50mm (sigma)
2.85x = 70-200mm
2.92x = 24-70mm
2.94x = 17-50mm (tamron, sigma)
3.00x = 50-150mm (sigma APS-C)
3.13x = 16-50mm (tokina APS-C)
3.24x = 17-55mm
3.75x = 28-105mm (tamron adaptall MF)

In fact, I think it would be the second largest zoom range of any constant-aperture ever released (behind the 5x Nikkor 24-120mm f4).  Anyone know of another lens I'm forgetting?

It is easier to make an f/2.8 ef-s lens than an ef one of course. Also canon do a 24-105 which is a larger zoom range btw.

60
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 200-400 f/4L IS Development Announced
« on: February 09, 2011, 07:00:58 PM »
They just crop the FF image that the lens delivers, and increase its dof.

Depth of field remains the same. Angle of view changes because of the crop.

A 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF is a 50mm lens with 6 inches DOF, no matter if you put it on a 1Ds or an HV40. A lens is a lens is a lens. Depth-of-field is controlled by optics. Angle of view is the ONLY thing that changes between imaging formats. The difference is that on a FF sensor, more objects are now in view in the frame that are closer and farther away (blurrier objects appear in the frame), creating a higher contrast between the blurriest objects and the sharpest objects, which appears to create a shallower DOF when the DOF never changed.

Actually you're both wrong. If the 2 images were viewed at 100% on screen then the DOF would be the same, as stated, assuming the pixel density is the same. However, if the images were printed or scaled to the same size, say 12 x 8, then the DOF would be less on the cropped image as the lack of focus would be amplified by zooming into the image. DOF is very dependant on the medium on which the image is displayed.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5