September 01, 2014, 10:46:03 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 236
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 01:06:10 AM »
When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.

Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....

If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....

I think DPAF was the tip of the iceberg and we are in for a surprise.

I think it might be more along the lines of a super-souped up DPAF that assists phase AF and allows for nearly 100% in focus rates more than improved image quality (aside from the in focus aspect), but who knows. I fit is 20.2 MP that seems to hit more towards this, but maybe the specs are wrong, so far they have all been wrong.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:17:12 PM »
Exactly.  It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images. 

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.

And yet such words have ONLY be typed here by Skulker, Keith, dtaylor, yourself and the like.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:15:46 PM »
If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

And yet IN REALITY, from waht I see most of us can be quoted from this thread as having said that you can find an infinite number of subejcts where ytou could take great shots with Canon.

But it seems the other side tries to make it sound like there are zero times having more DR could ever help to any degree taht would matter.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:13:56 PM »
I never said Canon cameras were not useful. That's what all the other DRones say.

Actually it is not what the 'DROnes' say. It's what neuro and Keith and friends say (attributing it to the other side, but nobody ever actually says such words, with maybe the most extreme rarest exception, other than the defends of Canon's sacred honor crowd).

Quote
What I am saying is that the arguments put forth in defense of Canon are frequently fallacies or other tactics that mislead. Sure, you can get away with using Canon equipment. I do myself.

exactly



Quote
However...Canon has shown no clear initiative to improve their low ISO capabilities. Not everyone on the face of the planet shoots at high ISO.

Exactly, so even if some were to go off the deep end about it, how would that a bad thing? Isn't giving the company that a makes a cam which you otherwise like a push something good when it seems like said company sure needs the push? If the company whose products you use gets egged on into improving is that supposed to be bad?






5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:05:31 PM »
The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.

The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...

Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic  than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one  should ever need more DR.

Conversely, some people (not referring to you) take a single factor of camera system performance, promote the idea that better performance in that factor is of such paramount importance that no other aspect of camera system performance has relevance, and then proceed as if that one factor which is important to them is critical for everyone, so much so that lesser performance in that metric spells 'doom' for a particular brand.

Those same people sometimes obsess over trying to prove their point, and post their views rampantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with that issue. 

Ultimately, people vote with their wallets.  Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over and starts going on about how none of the stuff really ever matters, or it's only apparent to lab geeks, or learn how to expose moron, etc. and then if that fails a good bit of but don't you know that there is more to a camera than one aspect, yeah of course we knows, but this thread was about the sensor! We don't fill up threads going on about how amazing the 24 T&S II or 100L or 24-70 II are and say yeah but who cares since the DR is behind.

Back when Canon sensors were basically the best at everything I played them up as the best at everything. And when they had a bit lower spec bodies then I wasn't afraid to admit it. When Canon had poor wide angle lenses I wasn't afraid to bring that up and now that they have many great FF standard and wide lenses I am not afraid to sing their praises. When the 5D3 had good fps and AF I didn't hide it. When the 24-70 II came out I praised it like crazy and I didn't even blanch at Canon's pricing of it, I was like hey this ZOOM basically matches my 24 1.4 II prime (aside from distortion) and it is nearly true APO. I sold my 7D to fund my 5D3, but I don't make up garbage to defend my 5D3 and say that the 7D never gave me anything that my 5D3 can't and that I didn't ever get a reach advantage from it. My 5D3 is good at some things and frustratingly behind in others. When it arrived I wasn't afraid to knock it for having blurry video and extremely low detail in shadows or low contrast areas. When ML RAW came out for it I wasn't afraid to then say that the RAW video out of it wasn't truly stunning and far better than anything you could get out of a Nikon.

I don't try to defend my purchases. I just try to call it as I see it. If it does things much better I say it, if it does things much worse I say it.

But an entire brigade goes around and hassles anyone who ever dares bring up that something isn't the best and hounds them and calls them incompetent moron photographers or lab geeks or clueless and tell them to go out and shoot (if they even know how) and toss subtle insults all over and mocks them and they try to downplay and hide and minimize any findings and yeah maybe DxO overall ratings are curious shall we say but then they also toss out and trash all the generally valid individual plot info. And many good posters have been driven from the forums and some are still around and maybe we've become to annoying and testy at this point but maybe many of us got pushed to it although maybe we should better let the nonsense just brush off.

And maybe some bits get overblow and this or that, but come on.

If we didn't know that Canon has a nice UI and lenses and, with ML only, some really good video (although they may fall way behind on 4k soon it sounds like) we maybe wouldn't care to even bother posting in Canon forums.  But at the end of the day, going to the nth degree to defend any last aspect whatever brand is behind on, helps nobody and if some aspect even were overblown, it could only help the users of that product in the end anyway.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:50:29 PM »
The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.

The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...

Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic  than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one  should ever need more DR.

+1

And the whole reason many of the 'DRoners' keep going on endlessly about it because the defenders of the scared honor of Canon constantly

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:46:40 PM »

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky. 

Yep - but with all due respect to him, he's not the final arbiter of what can and cannot be achieved with a Canon file - I've been a number of examples from Jon which immediately made me think "Hmmm... That's not a very good job", because, like a lot on here, he seems wedded to a single converter. Some of the stuff on his own website has made me scratch my head about the image quality he's achieving with his bird photography, too.

The simple fact (and I use the word advisedly) is this: DPP (for example) can pull clean detail out of the shadows of Canon low ISO files in a way which - blind tested (been there, done that) - isn't that far from similarly "cranked" Sonikon sensor files. 

There's more than one way to skin the low ISO DR cat...

But even the examples we're discussing are - in the great scheme of things - unlikely to represent the kind of photograph which most of us are taking on a regular basis, and it's actually good design and good business for a manufacturer not to expend time, money and effort building in capability which - realistically, whether the DR whiners like it or not - is only going to be of "niche" value.

And on DPR it was shown that DPP was smearing things out and maybe you had a bit less noise and fixed pattern banding, but you had no details or smooth changes either and DPP also didn't let one pull up as much and it is worse at saving highlights, etc. etc.

8
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:12:05 PM »
The price on the 24-70 f/4 should have been under $1K from the get-go. No way did it feel or perform like a $1500 lens.

OTOH the 24-105L list wasn't much less and that performed much worse (especially at 24mm). Of course 24-105 street had fallen like crazy.

The 24-70 f/4 IS had been on sale for $1000 every few months or so for a long time. It does make sense to lock it there. It's really going to make the places listing 24-105 for $1200 look beyond absurd though now. That was beyond absurd already. I guess 24-105 is now discontinued (replaced by 24-70 f/4 IS as I had been saying).

9
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS $999 at Adorama
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:09:05 PM »
To be fair, on a cosmic time scale the entirety of human existence has been 'for a very limited time'...   ;)

When I hear the phrase 'available for a limited time only', I sometimes think of the ad campaign for the McRib sandwich. It is for the good of The Entirety of Human Existence that the McDonalds McRib sandwich is usually available for a limited time only.

Wasn't the 24-70 f4/L overpriced at 1.5K?

It was, but it was regularly on sale for $1025 or so. I paid that for one more than a year ago.
I just sold one a couple months ago for a 16-35 f/4 IS. Did that just in time. I sold it for like $950.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:52:08 PM »
Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.  I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate.  We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good.  I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

Or forest scenes, it's sooo easy with sunbeams entering forests to reach high DR scenarios and filters are useless since things are so complicated, you surely can't light the scene, and often branches are constantly swaying so multi-exposure isn't always in the mix. Or say post storms like where you have areas in shadows and others with the sun blasting out rays and the mists are swirling all over, pretty amazing, but very hard to manage without a ton of DR.

etc. etc.

Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:47:25 PM »
are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

i have a life that´s why i don´t waste my time searching and quoting such comments i was refering to.

Speaking of "childish"...

The use of "we" in my post was completely correct - I'm part of the group that's challenging the DR whiners, and part of the group you called "childish".

Yeah because calling them DR whiners and DRoners and lab geeks and fools who take a picture or who don't know to use a camera is sooo....

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:45:23 PM »
even when its only in extrem cases when you have to push the shadows... it still makes the sensor better. there is no use in denying it and saying that it doesn't matter.


Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

But the fact is that - for the most part - it doesn't matter. It literally, actually, definitively, demonstrably does not matter.

It doesn't matter to those of us who never get down to 100 ISO (never below 400 ISO myself); it doesn't matter to those of us who don't need to push shadows five stops (and for the record, I don't believe anyone needs to do that as a matter of routine unless they're incapable of exposing an image properly in the first place); it doesn't matter to those of us who are more interest in highlight latitude - where Canon sensors do very well, incidentally; and it doesn't matter to those hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of photographers who simply want cameras that do what needs to be done with a minimum of fuss, and who don't have any interest in the DR obsession.

Quote
it´s just childish behavior.

What's childish is the infantile insistence of some that low ISO DR is all that matters, and that because it (supposedly) matters so much to them, it's all that should matter to anyone and everyone.

This is pretty much the definition of petulant, spoiled-brat "I'll scream and scream until I make myself sick!" behaviour.

That's what we rail against.

Please have the decency accurately to characterise the nature of our position, instead of dumbing it down into something it's not.

yeah sure Keith

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:27:28 PM »
How much is Canon paying you to suffer and defend the brand?  If the threads bug you, don't read them.  Better yet, go out and take some shots.  As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a substantially better sensor.  It's natural that people want more oomph out of their cameras and its natural for them to look at competing brands for validation of their choices.  Seriously, go out and take shots.

How about you don't wade in, missing the point by a country mile with worn-out, rote, flamebait clichés?

The folk here who "defend" (which, incidentally, is an immature, immotive characterisation of what's really going on here) Canon, do so:

Because they don't appreciate lies, half-truths and irrelevances presented as "facts" - much less as show-stopping, catastrophic failures by Canon.

Because they know, from their own use of Canon equipment, that it can achieve anything they need a camera to do - which is, images (not pixels) of the most sublime image quality anyone might possibly wish for.

Because the whining about Canon's "sub-standard" sensors says more about the whiners (and their own failings) than it does about the sensors.

Simply put, they "defend" because that's the proper reaction to the bullsh*t. Other people who (God help them) might choose to visit Canonrumors to get some useful information about the capabilities of Canon cameras deserve a balanced view that pushes back against the interminable DR crap.

And it'll continue to happen for as long as the DR whiners continue to push their DR agenda, and as long as that agenda continues to mean sweet FA for the vast majoiity of photographers out there in the Real World.

blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!

14
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:47:49 PM »
Dare I wade into the pizza war?  :P

Perhaps I can translate it into a wooden pizza to fit one of my other hobbies: If I have a 15" maple disc, cutting it into 6 pieces WOULD give me more maple surface area than cutting it into 8 pieces. Why? because there is waste from blade kerf. If I have a 1/8" kerf, I lose an approximately 1/8" slice of material with each cut. Let's say now that we fill in each cut with a 1/8" slice of ebony so we don't lose overall surface area when we glue it all up. The disc maintains its original surface area, but there is still less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6. Using a 1/16" kerf blade will increase the ratio of maple surface area to ebony, but there will still be less maple surface area with 8 slices than with 6.

Now imagine the disc is actually a rectangle, and the pieces are squares instead of pizza slices. The maple is the photo-sensitive portion of the sensor, and the ebony is the border around each pixel. If sensor size and transistor size are constant, doesn't increasing the number of pixels increase the number of borders and transistors, and doesn't that reduce the portion of the overall sensor that receives light? Is moving from a 500nm process to a 180nm process like going from a 1/8" kerf to 9/200" kerf?

I'm obviously not a sensor geek, so I might be completely misunderstanding pixels, borders, et cetera. What am I missing in this analogy?  :P

What you're missing is gapless microlenses, which essentially render the "blade kerf" largely moot by concentrating the light into the light-sensitive area between the "kerf lines".

although most DSLR sensors still waste some space that could be used for the well size etc., I believe
some P&S sensors I believe get around this by going to backside and so on though so the tech is already there to get around it pretty much, it is more expensive, especially on FF sensor size though so they haven't yet bothered with it since the cost is not yet worth it for the tiny gains at this point (if FF went to super high MP then BSI and so on would help enough for some to maybe want to pay the extra)

at ultra high MP counts compared to really low MP counts using current FF DSLR methods the ultra high MP might start showing reduced performance, but for the type of tech currently used, I don't think the MP counts of the highest DSLRs are high enough yet for it to really noticeable matter (and they do have options for when it would start to matter a bit (and evne with SOny RS100, very high density and BSI helps but it's really not anything all that radical at all of a difference)

15
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:44:01 PM »
The problem with the basic laws of physics is that our understanding of them has always been incomplete. They still are.

yeah, but you have to admit that collecting more photons than are hitting a scene seems to be a problem of a different level....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 236