March 01, 2015, 02:21:17 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 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 283
1786
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 02:08:17 AM »
- Nikon seems to be much more logical to use than canon. The comands on Nikon are much easier to learn.

Hmmm. I remember a few years back two people at the paper didnt have any equipment with them and then suddenly something needed to get covered (an event right next to the paper's office which they just happened to be walking past) and the paper only had two bodies left that were not checked out, both Nikon. And by the time either of the Canon users figured out how to even set a few basic things like ISO speed the event was over and they came back with zero pictures!! What kind of a tangled UI makes such a ridiculous thing even possible? And yet when I hand my Canon to a Nikon user they can get the basics going in seconds. IMO Canon UI is way better and way more intuitive. Even the most basic settings on Nikon are buried away who knows where.
I think is more that you used Nikon for so many years that it seems to make sense.

Of course UI is a very personally thing (but again I bet if you took say a bunch of Leica users or something, ones who had never touched a Canon or Nikon in their life, and put a Canon and a Nikon body in front of them, I bet well over 50%, I bet like 85% if not 90% or 99%  ;D get the Canon camera working at a pretty advanced level without a manual on hand faster; of course in the end maybe a good number would prefer the Nikon UI anyway but that is individual).

1787
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 02:02:50 AM »
I know everybody has invested in lenses and accessories, so jumping ship is not practical, but here is what that 3 stop of extra DR can mean (5D3 on top, D800 on the bottom):


All this really proves that even two of the best cameras currently made are each capable of producing suboptimal images when used incorrectly.

It isn't that the 5D III was used incorrectly. Fred Miranda was the one who did that review, and he is a respectable authority on such matters. The original sample images were shot to keep the whites from blowing in a high DR scene...and this, quite plain and simply, is indeed the result when you lift the shadows to compensate. There isn't any question that Canon has issues with their low ISO DR. It has been blotchy and banded for well over five years now, and it is Canon's weakest point.

Given DXO's review of the 70D, it's clear they have not put any effort into improving sensor IQ. Canon's focus is clearly different, and the weight of their focus has clearly shifted heavily towards video. I was hoping to see a better DR improvement for the 70D, and these results are rather disheartening. I'm a stills photographer, and I use my DSLR for still photographs. Quite frankly, I would really like to see Canon invest some of their huge cash flow into improving their products for their primary intended purpose, and not some secondary "sometimes convenient" purpose like video.

The Magic Lantern crew proved that Canon's sensors are capable of capturing the full 14 stops of dynamic range allowed by a 14-bit ADC...I think its high time Canon stopped their focus in video and returned their focus to EVERY aspect of IQ, including factors based on the sensor. I've argued in the past that there are other factors that affect IQ, such as AF system, but Canon has already perfected those technologies. Fred Miranda's comparison of the 5DIII and D800 is an excellent demonstration of why Canon should finally shift their focus back towards improving still photography IQ. I don't even think the problem is in the sensor, either...I think its in the ADC...and Canon pretty much whips up a new version of that every major release cycle anyway...so there shouldn't be any reason they couldn't invest some serious R&D into solving their low ISO IQ problem.

No more clever arguments from me about why Canon's products are good. They are, but that isn't the point any longer. I truly hope to see something significant on the sensor/ADC IQ front with the 7D II...otherwise, the 5D III will probably be my last Canon DSLR purchase until they stop focusing on secondary video functionality and refocus on the primary purpose of a DSLR: photography.

+1

The latest patent they have released (2013 for the newest variant, apparently they already had ones as far back as 2006 though) seem to make it clear they even have the designs to do it, or least largely so it appears, so they just need marketing to let the engineers start producing their DSLR sensor designs on Canon's more modern fabs or to build a new one instead of making the DSLR engineers have to work within the limitations of the very old 500nm Canon fab. But they have so far wanted to keep milking the old fab DSLR while all other other companies move on to new fabs for large sensors. (someone claimed they heard that Canon had shifted some of the newest P&S models to the older fab and speculated Canon had finally decided to use the 180nm fab for DSLRs now. Who knows. Just a rumor.)

I do have to say I do love the 5D3 video abilities though now that they have been unlocked by Magic Lantern. It's pretty astonishing. I don't think that really had anything to do with not getting better stills quality though (maybe costs it a touch in the MP count but then again it also got it to a very nice 6fps by staying lower, although I suppose they could've maybe fit in two digic since the 7D could fit two, but whatever)).

The new liveview AF for the 70D does sound it took quite a lot of resources up. It is very cool though. All the same if it was better sensor for IQ vs that I'd have takne the better sensor and then done this new AF later. For the 70D market perhaps the AF matters more. But in the end I think it's probably mostly just that marketing wanted them to keep milking the old 500nm line which probably meant there wasn't much the sensor engineers could really do.

1788
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:50:04 AM »
Its funny how everyone keeps bashing this camera because the sensor is only a small improvement for stills.
However i think this gamera is the biggest overal jump in the history of the xxD series.

In general only the sensor improved slowly with each model and addes a few MP and a few small features.

But this time they not only slightly improved the sensor they also added other stuff thats quite welcome like
-wifi to upload to facebook flickr or clouds or even use the camera remotely over wifi with your tablet!
-a better 19 point all cross focus system from the 7D
-a touch screen
-faster live view focus
-in camera HDR which might be fun and easy
-better viewfinder coverage
-hybrid autofocus for video
-a stunning 7 fps rather then 5.3 which launched this camera into a budged sports camera
-decicated focus mode button that lets you choose focus mode while shooting and much more button layout optimisations life movie button.


so in reality this camera is a massive upgrade. and the few samples ive seen also show that the black levels and noise preformance is really visible when compared to the 7d which for its price now is the direct competitor.

true and people have said so on other threads, but this thread was titled DxO sensor score though so what do you expect?

1789
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:48:53 AM »
So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

And yet, do we see Nikon users, 10 times a day, 10 times an hour, beating the beejeezus out of Nikon on the Nikon forums for the wide open corner performance of this lens? Do we see Canon users dropping in on Nikon forums and chortling arrogantly, and constantly posting pics of comparative wide open corner shots?

Why not? Is someone, somewhere, having an attack of courtesy?

It is why I started this topic
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=16691.0

People are fixated on sensor performance, and then mostly on DR.

I am not really sure if there are Nikon users in these forums only to bash troll and attack, If so it is rather sad.

Now we just need to learn how to spot and ignore them, If no one replies to their posts their fun will be over really fast , they might even leave for an other canon forum to try and get some satisfaction !

Maybe the reason is that they envy canon glass, ergonomics or other things.....
I like Nikons green tint on the top screen when it's dark, canon has a bit yellowish :(  (altough mine is blue).
I like that they have better sensors....

I think is should go to a Nikon forum and constantly talk about the inferior lenses.....
Keep on going about the extremely poor buffer on the d7100, and that there is no Wildlife camera in the current line up (other than the d4, which has only 16mpix on FF) for wildlife shooters that care about raw+fps+buffer ...... there is ?

Most likely the only response you will get is : But... I have superior DR :D

Most of the people who mention DR in the Canon forums are Canon users who are simply making note of what each new sensor does and/or those simply hoping Canon will start producing sensors with more DR and less banding (with the 70D they seem to have finally do much better with banding, it tentatively appears and somewhat better with the 6D and 1DX, those two are almost as good as the old 1Ds3/40D in that regard). It's nothing about trolling or supposedly getting satisfaction or trying to rub things in people's faces or get kicks from getting a rise out people. You make it sound like it's sports fan bases clashing or something. Here and there a few trolls there may be, but it doesn't make a troll to simply report facts, all the facts, on each new release and/or to want more DR.


1790
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:42:09 AM »
So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

yes, the 70-200/2,8 VR2  is not the best regarding corners and together with a 24x36mm sensor, it is like a lot of lenses soft, and  compared with for example  Canon 70-200mk2 is the canon is much better
Now , it is not  the only  lens Nikon has, like Canon they have several and with better corner sharpness

Not the 24-70 2.8 though or 70-300 either.

Eventually if it really finally seems like Canon truly will never bother with more DR for another decade or two, I will switch, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. I'm starting to almost feel like it might be another decade for them or more. If the next round doesn't do anything for DR I wont buy it and will probably stop moving up in lenses, perhaps even dabble with a single lens and a Nikon as a second body and hope there is some sign the 5D5 round will do it, if it looks like not then I might finally switch over (keeping 5D3 and a simple lens or two for video if Nikon hasn't gotten anything going for video by then).

You'd actually switch over 2 stops of dynamic range? If Sony started making sensors with 20 stops of range that would be another thing, but if they stick at 13 (on average) and Canon stays around 11 (again, on average), that seems like a pretty minor issue to me.
If you look at the two flagship models, the 1DX and D4, it's only a 1.4 stop difference. Is that really such a huge lead? Heck, if you look at the variation within Nikons own current production models there's almost as much difference within Nikon as there is between the worst models from both companies.
Heaven forbid someone use a D4 instead of a D800.
Of course all else being equal it's a clear choice, but I have a feeling it'll never come to that, at least not within my lifetime.

It's more than two stops compared to the 5D2 or 5D3 (vs D600/D800/D7100/etc. (the D4 doesn't use exmor so the difference isn't as large compared to that but the D4 is still better for DR for sure)) and that is just engineering DR, real world it is bigger since the 5D3/5D2 have some of the greater amounts of pattern banding and such junk, using the 6D at least you could get a bit closer to just the engineering difference between them.

Anyway yeah it's often that it is just 3 stops I'm missing. So eventually I would switch. There are a lot of Canon advantages though and it's a pain to switch so I haven't leaped right into a switch. I keep thinking Canon will catch up soon, but it is starting to take a while. Hopefully the 2014/2015 cameras do it. If not then I'm not sure, that would mean another 3-4 years on top of that and maybe even longer if even that round doesn't catch up. How long can you wait. At the very least I'd stop getting any more Canon stuff and pick up a Nikon and one general lens and if Nikon improves other stuff too.... Hopefully that patent means they do have something planned for the 2014/2015 cameras though.




1791
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:34:56 AM »

Sticking your head in the sand is very dangerous in this forum.... there may be dangers lurking on the beach....

I like that croc/gator pic.

1792
Lenses / Re: Big price Drop On the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:33:02 AM »
Canon reduced the price on this lens and 4 others:

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2013/08/price-drop-ef-35mm-f2-is-usm-for-599/

But they also increased the price on a lot of L-lenses:

http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2013/09/canons-silent-labor-day-price-increase/

Yuck I've noticed quite a few L lenses are really becoming fierce. The 24 T&S II sold as low as $1899, I think even $1799, at a few stores at one time and now quite a few have bumped it to $2199. And wow that 70-300L has gone up!

The one huge exception is the 24-105 has yeah sure list at some stores is still $1150 but come on everyone knows you get a new split kit or bundle for $650 or $550 these days.

The 24-70 II and 24-70 f/4 IS are down a bit too but they had some pretty super high intro prices.

1793
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS 70D Included in Rebates
« on: September 03, 2013, 01:29:43 AM »
Yeah..  That's what I thought..  Slow sales..  That's a bit odd...  :(

It seems like they are trying to clear stock of the 70-300 IS what with the L at the top and then the Tamron giving a more than strong run for its money at the lower price tier and the upcoming 55-250 IS STM which has crazy good MTF charts....

A good deal if you want the 70-300 IS though and it's not a bad lens at all.

1794
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:19:01 PM »

No, that would be not acknowledging that Sony/Nikon sensors have more DR than Canon, and that's not what's going on here.

Actually one of more frequent posters to thread dealing with DR on DPR does deny the DR advantage. He more less says DxO is ultra-biased against Canon and that more DR actually makes image quality worse and that Canon should never, ever try to match Exmor. He didn't use to say that when Canon was ahead. But now in defense of that, he seem to claim that Canon has not improved DR for a while because they known they are at the perfect magical limit and they are not so foolish as to go beyond it like Nikon and others so as to avoid ruining image quality.

Granted DPR is not, strictly speaking, here.

But even here how often do you see a post, even from yourself, tossing off getting more DR as nothing but useful for incompetents who like to shoot everything underexposed by 5 stops/who don't know to work a camera/who want to shoot awnings at 10 stops under for no apparent reason/that even DxO's plots are a pure crock and so on and so forth?

Quote
For the people who don't find the less DR to be a problem, or not enough of a problem to outweigh the advantages for them, nothing you, Mikael, Aglet, LTRLI, or others post here will change that.

One could also say, if you don't care about DR why jump all over any thread where someone points out Canon is way behind in DR again with a new sensor? If it doesn't matter to you, then who cares? People pointed out a fact that doesn't matter to you so why do you care then and jump all over every such thread? OK if you do but then you also turn around and complain the threads go on forever.



1795
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:09:19 PM »
So I was looking at some resolution charts for lenses yesterday.

Man the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR 2 sucks, like, those corners are terrible. To think that Nikon shooters have been wasting their lives with glass like that for so many years, almost half a decade now, sheesh, and it's so obvious too. It's like they've all got their head in the sand or something. I mean, obviously whatever talent you have is being severely limited if you use that system.

yes, the 70-200/2,8 VR2  is not the best regarding corners and together with a 24x36mm sensor, it is like a lot of lenses soft, and  compared with for example  Canon 70-200mk2 is the canon is much better
Now , it is not  the only  lens Nikon has, like Canon they have several and with better corner sharpness

Not the 24-70 2.8 though or 70-300 either.

Eventually if it really finally seems like Canon truly will never bother with more DR for another decade or two, I will switch, but I'd rather not if I don't have to. I'm starting to almost feel like it might be another decade for them or more. If the next round doesn't do anything for DR I wont buy it and will probably stop moving up in lenses, perhaps even dabble with a single lens and a Nikon as a second body and hope there is some sign the 5D5 round will do it, if it looks like not then I might finally switch over (keeping 5D3 and a simple lens or two for video if Nikon hasn't gotten anything going for video by then).

1796
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 05:04:35 PM »
Quote from: Jim O
And neither did we mere mortals complain when we shot with Velvia in the 1990's. It was what it was.

The Fuji shooters do not complain about the DR of the Fuji cameras today either, which is what it is - much higher than Canon.

And this has what to do with my point which was that DR is not everything? That was my point. It had nothing to do with Fuji sensors. How did you tangent off from Fuji color reversal film from the 1990's and onto Fuji sensors of today? I know why I brought up Velvia; again, it was to make the point that making beautiful images can be done with the rather narrow DR of color reversal film.

Of course it can (be used to make beautiful images within narrow DR limits of slide or even color print film). As I said you can use a 5D3 to take a basically infinite number of amazing shots where it would work fine. I used Velvia in the past at times and it could be totally awesome for some things, lush meadow on Rainier with flowers in bloom and soft overcast lighting, man the greens of the fields! But all the same with less DR are more limited the number of different types of things you can pull off. People used to constantly rue how hard it was to try to shoot in sunbeam lit forests back then and how stuff like K64 if you tried really made it impossible.

Nobody is saying that you have to toss your Canon on the ground, kick, toss it into a mud pile and then off the roof  or that there are not pluses to the system but some people sure would like them to catch up in DR before it ends up being over a decade and who knows how much longer. They have fallen way behind there and they haven't show much desire to want to invest in using new fabs for their DSLRs even while everyone was willing to spend to do so. Some people only make use of it once in a blue moon but other good likely make use of it on at least a semi-regular basis. I'll bet even a few of the strongest naysayers who say that it's totally overblown and would barely make any difference ever and even a few who claim that more DR would make the camera worse (and yes there have been some, one of the biggest posters on DPR for instance) will suddenly end most glad they have it when/if they finally get extra DR.

Not that it is the only thing or the end of the world by any remotest means, but it can be a very nice thing, certain for a good chunk of people if not everyone.

And yes 5D3 video with ML is astoundingly better than the video from any Nikon or Sony DSLR. Just to randomly toss something in there. After the ML RAW release the 5D3 became a true revelation for video as the 5D2 had been. It's an incredibly awesome thing.



1797
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 04:52:28 PM »
What ISO were these outdoor crowd shots taken at?
ISO 100.
Quote from: zlatko
Perhaps a case of unrealistic expectations.  Those aren't just highlights.  They are direct light sources.  When I photograph people in a dark setting at night, I don't expect to hold nice detail in the lightbulbs that light the scene.
It is not about highlights. It is about the DR starting from the clip point to the noise floor. The Sony sensors can detect marginally more photons (on a log scale). For all practical purposes, more or less the same. The difference comes from the noise floor. Having lower noise allows you to expose for the highlights and still have decent shadows. The shadows here, pulled in pp, are plain ugly. Vertical banding is everywhere, plus random noise. There is nothing unrealistic about expecting no visible vertical banding, at least. The 70D seems to be free of it but still has the strong random read noise. Oh, I almost forgot - every other brand has about 2 stops lower read noise.

It's not about the highlights?  Of course it is ... and the shadows too.  The highlights and shadows are two ends of the same ruler.  If you expose for one, you lose the other.  If you expose for both, you get a sub-optimal exposure for both.  So you got noisy shadows and blown highlights.  Ansel Adams had the same issue in the Martha Porter portrait; he chose to expose for the shadows and totally blew the highlights.  He didn't blame Kodak for their limited DR film (or for his own lack of a reflector or flash).


What he means is that the clip point is the clip point, that is always fixed goal, you expose as much as you can without blowing and bright parts that you want to save (sometimes you do want to blow some of the bright parts, certainly if the noon sun is in the shot you are not going to be trying to expose the scene so as to save the highlights in the sun's orb  ;D well unless the shot was a sun shot only and you were trying to show sun spots or eclipse or something but you know what I mean), so all that matters for DR is the read noise.

The max wells are not that different between the cameras for the most part and even the color filters usually don't affect it to much so any difference in saving highights you see is nothing more than how the meter in the camera works and where the manufacturer suggests RAW develop programs place the mid-tone, but those have nothing to do with what the sensor did or what is contained in the RAW file. All of the main DSLR use basically the same single channel type linear sensor so there really is no such thing as one brand saving highlights noticeably better than another (maybe under weird lighting and with a particular color subject the color filters may blown different channels enough in different orders between different cameras you could encounter some difference). It's more if you were to compare a regular digital camera to the old Fuji teo pixel type design or to film, which has a very non-linear capture, where the way highlights roll off might seem noticeably different.


1798
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Magic Lantern insecurities...
« on: August 31, 2013, 11:54:44 PM »
Part of me wonders if Canon marketing understands that it is a good thing

After a recent trip to the local electronics market/discounter shop and listening in to the conversations of people buying 7d-6d type gear I think what Canon marketing knows is: 90% of their customers don't care or have a clue, and those who do buy 1d type bodies with enough fw featues out of the box.

Plus the competition isn't any better, even Sony dslrs with an evf show a complete lack of imagination about what you can do with a dslr - so why should Canon bother and rock the boat?

The ml research shows that the Canon tech guys put a lot of features inside the digic processors, it's just that even their own firmware doesn't use it... more features mean more testing, bugs and support costs.

I more meant whether they realize ML is actually a plus for them (I noted that the 5D3 price shot back up to near intro price just a few weeks after ML RAW came out, coincidence or cause and effect? what else could have suddenly driven demand up enough to support the high price again? i wonder)

Because in video you get eaten alive quickly.

1799
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 10:45:06 PM »
It is a shame that they didn't manage to give the 5D2/5D3 the 1Ds3/6D DR usability at least. For some reason after the 1Ds3 and 40D they went backwards in terms of pattern banding for a bunch of years and only got back to where they had been again with the 6D.
For me, the 5D3 has better usability than the 6D, as it should for the price.  It sounds like your definition of usability is very narrow if pattern banding when pushing Lightroom sliders trumps everything else.

Wow where the did heck did I ever say that the 6D has better usability than the 5D3 or that the 6D trumps the 5D3?!!!? I said I sure wish they had given the 5D3 the better resistance to pattern banding that they gave the 6D and the slightly lower read noise as well. 5D3 has vastly better video, better AF, better controls, better fps, better reaction time, etc.

It's pretty easy to make us all seem silly when make stuff up and keep going around saying that all we care about it shooting brick walls, or underexposing every shot by 5 stops, or claiming that 6D is easily the most usable and best Canon body. I'm sure I could make you sound silly if I asked you to stop saying that the 75-300 IS has far superior AF and image quality than the 300 2.8 IS II couldn't I? So stop saying that. Don't be silly and say such things. You keep saying the 300 2.8 IS II is the worst lens every made. Why do you keep saying that?

If I was a 100% pure landscape shooter I probably would sell my 5D3 and get some cash back and use the 6D for Canon shooting. But I shoot all sorts of things so no I did not trade in my 5D3 for 6D.

1800
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 10:38:03 PM »
The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to,

Stop with the imaginary drama. You know...or should know for all you talk about DR...that the shadow noise issue traces back to a Sony patent. Canon can't do the same thing Sony can in designing their sensors. Do you expect Canon to close their fabs and become dependent on Sony over this issue?

Quote
so until everyone makes a big stink they will just toss us old, old tech sensors when it comes to low ISO performance for who knows how many more years or half decades.

Patents last 20 years. I don't know if Canon will be able to work around the patent, or if some other technology will make it moot, in less time. Probably the latter, but who knows when.


Maybe if CR had posted the DR patent part of Ankorwatt's find and had put it on the front page along with the security sensor whatever that they did put on the front page (as they do with basically every other patent under the sun that someone comes across) you'd know that Canon has high DR patents, including ones using column ADC, a that a new one was just filed relatively recently, Ankorwatt brought it to light, and then others brought to light that they had actually had others for column ADC varients in 2007 and 2006 too and it has even been said that they didn't care enough to file one for a completely different potential method to increase DR back earlier on too (although maybe something was lost in translation in the telling of that story).

The problem is that with most of those patents, and certainly not with the latest one, they can't make use of any of it on their ancient 500nm process (where they make all their DSLR sensors). Other makers invested in new advanced fabs or moved DSLR production to advanced fabs that can handle more advanced sensor designs (not the that the sensor sensors themselves are bad from Canon, they are among or even the best, but the associated electronics parts of their sensors are very out of date so they are tossing out many stops of performance at low ISO that the sensor sensor actually has). Canon has invested as much in it and what they do have that is more advanced they keep reserved for P&S sensors.

Also even with old style tech, Nikon managed to do half way to Exmor in improvements, nothing patented there at all, and Canon stayed the same.

It was also said that they DSLR division in Japan was sent something to patent for improving DR that was supposed to be able to work on their current fabs but marketers/MBAs at DSLR division were said to have just tossed it off and were supposedly like who cares, shocking the other Canon division. It never got filed much less used, who knows what ever happened to it. Although maybe something got lost in translation between the two Canon divisions in the story that was told was not as absurd sounding for real.



Quote
Quote
If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade.

Nice hyperbole, but in 2003-2005 Canon sensors were measurably better in all respects. (And yet I still told my Nikon lens owning friend to buy a Nikon DSLR. Imagine that!)
[/quote]

What hyperbole? If the next round in 2014 doesn't deliver will will have had old tech for DR for over a decade, remember that the round after the next round doesn't happen the day after the next round is released but another good three years later on top.


Quote
Poorly processed concert photos and brick walls =/= "expanded photographic possibilities."

RIiiight sure because all we want is expanded possibilities to shoot brick walls. Stop making nonsense up.

Pages: 1 ... 118 119 [120] 121 122 ... 283