November 23, 2014, 07:29:01 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 4 ... 268
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:42:24 PM »
Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

The low color measurement on DxOmark does seem to indicate they may have picked up a little QE from a looser CFA.

I don't think one has to do with the other.  I've been told in the past that the QE modeling approach makes it effectively ignore the CFA.


Agreed. I believe the Q.E. is referring to the actual response of the silicon itself (that's usually how sensor manufacturers report it...as the silicon's response to light). That is the Q.E. of incident photons that make it all the way to the sensor.


So, to be clear, that means that even if you had a 100% response in the silicon itself (at 565nm, green light...the Q.E. is usually for green light), you could still increase overall light gathered by improving your filtering, or by eliminating filtering and going with MCS, or by improving microlens design, or by using ISOCELL in a BSI design, etc. Anything that increases the incident photon count at the photodiode will still increase overall efficiency...for whatever Q.E. you have.

well if they screen out the entire CFA effects then the 59% level seems even less believable


17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:40:55 PM »
Regarding Sensorgen.info data, he regenerated it all recently. After the site went down, a lot more data was brought over. I think there is a bug in whatever code brings the data over, because some sensors have wild read noise values and several hundred percent Q.E. I don't believe any of those numbers are valid...I think they are flukes generated by a buggy algorithm.

There's evidence to support this.

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20140715194150/http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2X.html

Yeah now 23% makes a lot more sense.
The new site is totally messed up and lots of the data seems to be nearly random.

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:38:07 PM »
That's nothing: we should all be still using Nikon D70s, QE two hundred and something percent !

Pfft.  D2Xs is 476%.

http://www.sensorgen.info/NikonD2Xs.html

Hmm the site seems to be riddled with typos or is not being very clear at all what they now mean by QE since many of the numbers are beyond patently absurd.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:36:32 PM »
I don't think sensor QE tells us much. Consider the following Nikon camera models:

Camera    QE
D3   90%
D3X   42%
D3s   57%
D4   52%
D4s   52%
D610   51%
D800   56%
D810   47%

90% with the D3?! That can't be true...

But otherwise, a nice improvement! :D

Yeah, something is wrong with those numbers, at least the D3 one for sure.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:34:29 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.


Highly, highly doubtful it has anything to do with the CFA. The CFA "color blindness" might have a minor impact on color noise, but overall the primary source of read noise is the off-die stuff.

But this didn't improve the late stage read noise at all. The 59% rating would be on photon shot noise, not read noise.



21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:33:33 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.
They are very conservative... this might be a case of step one - get the photodiodes/microlenses/support circuitry transferred over to the new fabrication run, and step 2 being to implement the A/D on chip. Don't forget that they are currently using A/D chips from a third party and that might complicate the move as they have no experience designing them... it could be a licencing of the design problem... or countless other reasons. It will come, but with Canon expect it to take time and when it does arrive, to be good.

Perhaps, but I still tend to doubt that.

22
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Need Best Monitor for Photo Edits
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:25:13 PM »
Word of warning.

The industry making screens and panels jumped the gun and has been producing screens that are not capable of displaying the full 4K/UHDTV gamut. Avoid paying a premium for anything that is "4K" unless it is also "Rec 2020 compliant."

That aside, any monitor that has inbuilt calibration (e.g. NEC Spectraview) is a "best fit" for photo edits.

nothing is fully rec. 2020 compliant though at the moment

If you wait for that you probably wait for a number of years and lose out on incredible 4k+ for all that time.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 09, 2014, 08:23:08 PM »
If they went to a new fab then why on earth would they not have implemented any of their column ADC or dual ISO read out patents?

Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:20:31 PM »
Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me.  I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison.  But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots.  I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast.  Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy.  So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).
Talk about reaching, what in the hell is "their color discrimination has faded over the years" supposed to mean, that the cameras they made got worse, or others now do better? And by what measure do you consider Canon cameras to deliver poor colour? Because when I profile mine I have absolutely zero issues with colour.

I mean the CFA filters have become more and more color blind and the metamerism scores have become worse, same is true for many DSLRs these days. It's a very complex to get into what that means exactly as it may mean something under some color tempertures of light and nothing under others and something for certain parts of the color spectrum and nothing or even better for colors in another part of the spectrum.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:18:33 PM »
Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated.

Thanks for sharing.

To be fair, his views mirror statements by some members of this forum, which have been vehemently argued against by others.  For example (emphasis is mine):

Quote from: Thom Hogan
So, for example, the 7DII has a landscape dynamic range of 11.8EV, the D7100 a range of 13.7EV. Before moving on, I should note that these aren’t exactly what you’d get out of the camera in images (e.g. 12 stops of data on the 7DII, 14 on the D7100). DxOMark’s numbers are closer to engineering DR than usable dynamic range, even with their adjustments for “print” and “screen." Engineering DR is measured between the lowest value that hits a signal-to-noise ratio of 1:1 (which we’d never use) and the highest saturation value of the sensor. Pragmatic DR has no agreed upon definition. When I report dynamic range numbers, as I do in my books, these are based upon my own personal standards, which have some fairly strict observed guidelines towards visibility of noise of any kind.

We've had the 'engineering DR is the only DR measure that's real and has any relevance to photography' mantra spouted by some people here for quite some time.  Interesting that someone well known in the field – and definitely not a 'Canon fanboy' – disagrees.

Actually we have no been saying that it gives you the usable DR, it's just a relative comparison point and Hogan went on to say that the difference in the exmor vs canon actually IS there that much (although he claims to not have it be enough for many of his shots, I totally do not find that to the case though, 2-3 stops makes all the difference in a ton more shots from what I see).

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:16:35 PM »
Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated. Thom is a Nikon guy, albeit a critical one, but definitely not a Canon fan boy. See the article at http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html

I think he downplays the low ISO DR a bit too much.

And I have to totally disagree with " However I’d point out that neither camera is likely to be able to hold extreme landscape situations in a single exposure: I’d still be bracketing and applying HDR type techniques to construct images in such cases. Thus, whatever the actual numeric difference in dynamic range between the 7DII and D7100 is at base ISO, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference to my workflow. I might adjust my bracket sets on the Canon to be a bit different than the Nikon to account for the difference in how they handle shadows, but that’s it. Bottom line, I’d get the same image."

I often find just another 2-3 stops would allow a one shot snap and that is pretty big.

The other stuff about ignoring the overall scores and looking at the plots is, as you say, what most of us have been saying for ages. The overall score is impossible to construct in a way that would be sensible for everyone and likely even for anyone. The D300s vs 7D2 score is one of the best (or maybe worst) examples. It gives a very, very distorted impression. The 7D2 also has a ton more MP which gives a lot more reach which is a main point for using APS-C for many. I'd dare say even the 7D might be the overall preferred sensor for wildlife over the D300s sensor never mind the 7D2 sensor. (Of course there is no doubt, other than for the few who prioritize the, somewhat crippled version, of DPAF video AF, that had they used a SOny APS_C sensor from today that the 7D2 would not have been better. The Sony aps-c sensor of today is definitely better than the one in the 7D2 at lower ISO if you ever hit any higher DR scenarios and it's even slightly better at moderate high ISO.)

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:08:55 PM »
Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me.  I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison.  But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots.  I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast.  Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy.  So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:07:52 PM »
...Canon has pretty much stagnated in the Full Frame DSLR space for pretty close to 3 years now.

As opposed to Nikon, who has released three new FF bodies in that period to fix problems with their predecessors – the D610 (D600 oil spots and banned for sale in the world's most populous country),

lefit

Quote
the D810 (unify D800/E production lines to save internal costs due to loss of corporate revenue), and the D750 (because neither the D610 nor the D810 were bona fide competitors to the very successful 5DIII and 6D).

wow, that is reaching beyond reaching, good grief

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 09, 2014, 02:06:59 PM »


I think there are some market share losses, but in my experience, I still see way more Canon than anything else. I shoot at a lot of press events for big companies and a lot of trade shows, and Canon easily accounts for two-thirds, if not closer to three-quarters, of the cameras I see overall. It varies by event, of course, but out of dozens in the last couple years, I can't recall any event in which Canons weren't at least half the field.

What's very interesting to me is this-- the video scene at these events is still dominated by Canon. I've noticed a few internal PR teams have switched to Nikon gear, and last year at CES, Black Magic cameras had a small but noticeable presence. As someone who will be fairly outraged if the 5D Mark IV (or some other 2015 $2000 - $4000 Canon DSLR) doesn't have a great 1080p implementation and a decent internal 4K implementation, I find Canon's resilience in this market interesting. I used to see more Sonys (e.g. FS100s) among the people who weren't using Canon DSLRs for video; now, I see more C100 and C300 bodies in this group. That said, most of the Canon bodies I see are at least a few years old-- i.e. lots of 5D Mark IIIs, some C100s, even a few t3is and 60Ds. Not seeing any 70Ds yet and it's still too early to have expected a 7D Mark II sighting-- but the reason I bring up the prevalence of older models is this: When I do see photo/video combos that aren't Canon, they're usually micro four thirds, not Sony. This is all anecdotal, of course-- but since we're talking about demographics in which Canon is retaining users, I thought I'd add another set of observations.

I think whether you see a market transition very much depends on the type of shooting you do and correspondingly the type of shooters you are around. What I encounter is in a space best described as travel and landscape, areas where DR and resolution are extremely important. Nearly everyone I see in that space is abandoning Canon and most have headed to Nikon.

Canon has put a great deal of emphasis on the video space over the last few years following the positive response to the video capabilities of the 5D2. It seems that they see that as there play for growth vs the FF still shooter. We've seen a lot of movement on the APS-C gear as well as in the video space but pretty much nothing in the FF still space for nearly 3 years. For those who say 'what about the 6D', I've always thought of that as not much more than a repackaged 5D2.


The video people seem to think Canon has now stagnated in video even more than the landscape high DR folks actually.

30
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:08:20 PM »
Hmm I wonder when Canon will announce it officially?

11th

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 268