September 17, 2014, 11:41:16 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 246
2161
There was recently a long thread regarding the reality that the Canon 1Dc is mechanically identical to the 1Dx and is simply a firmware difference... that costs an additional $6000.

Most placed the blame on Canon; calling it a ripoff and gouging. BUT... that is NOT the case.

As it turns out, this is in response to European Union rules. The EU considers 4k video, even on a still camera, as a Professional VIDEO camera, and the taxes, duties, and other trade tariffs are excessive. Canon cannot sell the 1Dc in Europe as a Still Camera.  This is EXACTLY the same reason that still cameras like the 1Dx have a video recording limitation of 29:59 minutes. At 30:00 capability, it becomes a "Video Camera" under EU rules.

This is screwing non-EU consumers because Canon is wary of getting slammed for violating EU rules, and probably afraid that offering the firmware upgrade only in non-EU countries would cause an underground blackmarket of product making its way to the EU. (Much like the graymarket here)

There IS a potential solution that I thought of....one that could solve the geographical issue. It's not something that Canon probably would have thought of though.. (Canon is not know for thinking "outside the box")

They could upgrade the 1Dx's with firmware that would REQUIRE the use of a Canon GP-E1 GPS unit that would have to be on the camera in order to film in 4X.  The firmware would bar the use of 4X when the GPS unit showed the location to be anywhere within the EU... or within any OTHER country that had the same type of penalizing tariffs.  Simple, and easy to do in firmware. I'd pay $1000 for the upgrade and buy the GP-E1 if that were the case.

Thoughts?

Who records 4k video in longer than 30 minute chunks? I don't believe this is the slightest bit of the reason.

And are you telling me that all video and camcorders start at $6000 in the EU??????

2162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:29:10 AM »
I mentioned this before, but perhaps it was lost in other conversation. My guess is that the 12.8 stops of DR for the 1D X is the "Print DR". It doesn't matter the camera, Canon, Nikon, or anyone else...I think that the Print DR figure is exceptionally misleading and falsely indicative of a sensor's capabilities. My guess is that the 1D X still only has 11.something stops of DR, like all the rest of Canon's cameras.

You keep repeating it, but it's still wrong. It's wrong because the low end of the dynamic range is determined by SNR, and SNR changes when you downsample. The lower end of the dynamic range is NOT some point at which the signal is clipped. It is not in general true that a pixel is completely insensitive outside the dynamic range. The baseline of dynamic range is defined in terms of SNR, not detectability.

You do run into a "quantization limit" at the number of bits in the ADC (assuming that both the sensor response and the ADC itself are linear), but even then, you do eliminate shadow noise and therefore increase your usable dynamic range.  But this is not an issue with the new canon bodies because their reported dynamic range does not exceed that of the ADC.

I should add further that  the screen "dynamic range" is also in some sense "just a score". A SNR of 0db is extremely noisy (as a point of comparison the powershot S90's noise at max ISO 18% gray is 13db), so depending on your criteria, the "usable dynamic range" might be a few stops less than that indicated by the screen score.

In the case of the 1D X, what you describe might indeed be the case. It is a bit different than the D800, wherein 14.4 stops of DR surpasses the bit depth of the ADC and the limit imposed by quantization. If we were purely talking about the Gaussian type of noise produced by the Poisson distribution of photons, I'd probably agree. I am not sure the same simplistic rules that apply to gaussian noise apply to the non-random forms of electronic/read noise, which is the primary cause of a LOSS of DR at low ISO in Canon sensors.

advice:

just quit before you dig an even deeper hole on this issue  ;)

Elford has it right.

2163
United States / Re: Fall Foliage Trip - Your advice please.
« on: October 15, 2012, 12:25:40 AM »
Thank you Ryan, I'll check it out.
We wanted to see the Natural Bridge in KY so we figured we go south this time, but next year it's North..

For Vermont the NEK (Northeast Kingdom) and Stowe area can have some really strong colors, need to hit them first week of October.

Higher parts of the Smoky Mtns or Blue Ridge can turns fairly early too, vastly earlier than most of the rest of the South.

Quote
(all that depending on dec 21 st of course :)) )

good call

2164
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:41:28 PM »
24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot.  I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.

24 1.4 II is crazy sharp (on photozone didn't it get truly insane numbers there center frame? I forget but I think so, my 24 1.4 II is nuts in the center, it drove 5D2 video to constant moire way more than even my 70-200 f/4 IS or almost anything else), but it seemed hard to tell apart from 24-70 II, both crazy sharp at 24mm IMO, the prime maybe a bit more consistent at corners though.

2165
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:32:37 PM »
You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.
Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.


I have to disagree, even the TINIEST hair difference and the crispness of a test chart WILL differ and you can easily flip flop around comparative performance between two lenses. Even doing 10x LV MF with a magnifier on top you absolutely will see differences test shot to shot and need to pick the best out of a bunch when you are doing fine comparisons.

Even on your chart maybe the first try is the 930 and the next try is the 815, if you didn't know they were both the same copy tested you could mistakenly think one copy is way better than the 'other'. YOu need a bunch of trials to hit the 930 score with reasonable chance.

And say a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC on a 7D, even a difference of 1 on MFA can make a noticeable difference in hit rate, DOF at that high MP count and such a long lens is small.

2166
Lenses / Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.
« on: October 14, 2012, 03:20:58 PM »
You can't [EDIT: I originally typed CAN by mistake instead of CAN'T] just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

2167
It is a pretty amazing lens, one that can give a 24 1.4 II a super close run for the money at 24mm stopped down a little (not one of the three 24-105 I tried were remotely close to giving my 24 1.4 II a run for it's money, not even at f/8-f/11) and, wide open at f/2.8, center frame, easily beat 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 center frame and even beat a 70-300L at 70mm f/4 center frame (at the far edges, maybe outer 1/8th or less of the frame, the 70-200/300 do do better at 70mm though it seems).

2168
It sounds like it will be a very good lens.  Some are reporting issues at the long end, so I'd check that out.
I'm waiting for the eventual price drop to decide if I'll get one.  By then,there will be a lot of feedback from users.

What issues?
Softness, particularly at the edges and 70mm. 
Two pretty respected reviewers have seen this.  There have been some that claim to have seen the issue in poosts on this forum, but I tend to look to experienced testers with a good track record of spotting issues.
  It is undoubtedly a fantastic lens, and there may be some samples with issues, which is why I'm waiting for more reviews to come in.  I've had 5 of the old version and they were not impressive.  I have high hopes for this one.
 
Let us know what you see.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/773-canon2470f28mk2ff?start=2

I've gotten to look at a few copies. One was utterly stunning 70mm, f/2.8, center frame, others VERY good there but not the match for that one, one was quite noticeably softer (at 70mm, f/2.8, center frame) than that one and noticeably softer than the other two. Even the worst at 70mm f/2.8 was still better than a good Tamron 28-75 at 75 2.8 though and maybe similar to a 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (with the copies I've seen the 70-200 f/4 IS is weakest at 70mm, f/4 though, but still solid). The worse ones at 70mm f/2.8 are softer at 70mm f/4 than the better ones are wide open at f/2.8. The best ones peak in sharpenss, center frame, 70mm, early, the lesser ones there peak later having f/6.3 definitely better than f/4, while the other copies having f/4 sharper than f/6.3 (and f/6.3 a bare trace sharper than f/6.3 on the worse copies).

All copies seemed to place edge DOF at different depths compared to the focal point compared to any other copy, which is a bit odd. If you focused on any given point, edges wide to mid were maybe not so different, some a bit better but whatever, but if you focused on some central object then you might have much more different results in the corners depending upon the scene.

2169
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:29:02 PM »
I do agree that it's best to look at their plots and RAW numbers and not there overall scores since they may not weigh various factors the way you would plus there isn't really any a way to look at so many different aspects at once and come up with one universal score to give meaning to it all at once.

I also agree that their lens testing appears to leave MUCH to be desired. Lens testing is done by different people there and it's much trickier to carry out well. I ignore their lens tests but their sensor data generally seems to be pretty solid.

OK maybe DxO tests have not crashed the market for Canon yet, but as you say they, and general more over the top crippling of silly little things, sure have made their user base restless as you can tell but peeking at any forum on the web. Switching systems is a big deal for many (it's a pain, costs some money, some don't like the Nikon UI as much, Nikon doesn't have 70-200 f/4 IS and such they are mostly all huge fast stuff or consumer stuff) and it can take a while for things to build up to make many switch, maybe they did not get there quite yet, but they could be heading there. Also the bulk of sales are probably in the Rebel market. Also the 5D2 was aided a lot by the video guys nabbing them like mad and Nikon hasn't had Exmor in FF smaller, more reasonably priced bodies until recently, etc.

And whoever markets things better often matters even more. Apple IIe and IBM PC were utter trash as was Windows for a long time (and even now to an extent) and yet that stuff sold and the far more advanced stuff, sadly, did not thanks to horrible management and a computer press often too easily bought and paid for.

2170
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:19:21 PM »
DxOMarks are useless and only made to entertain hobby photographers.

Yay! I love to run around bragging about how ignorant I am! Yay!

2171
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 10, 2012, 08:18:24 PM »

@tnargs, if anything, that just makes the main point of post #1 even stronger.  If DxO truly means that you can only use their scores to compare sensors of similar resolution, that make their results even more meaningless in the real world.  Furthermore, that begs the question - why normalize at all, if you can only compare sensors of simlar resolutions, normalization is moot. 


Exactly.

When I open up Road & Track and compare braking, 1/4 mile, and 0-60, 0-100 for a Ferrari versus a Hyundai, those tests stand up.

When I want to compare CPUs, I can use PassMark to see a plethora of different criteria and I can compare a Intel Celeron M 600Mhz to an Intel Core i7 3960X and QUANTITATIVELY see performance.

Granted in the CPU realm, Motherboard throughput will play a roll, but the speed of the calculations, etc is measurable, definable and COMPARABLE across generations.  So if I can compare the power of a 8 core CPU to a CPU from 8 years ago and measure the difference, how can I not DEFINITIVELY MEASURE a 36 MP sensor to a 10 MP sensor?

If you can't, then the TEST is MEANINGLESS.

The more I read the more I see just how flawed the DxOMarks scores are.  Anyone can produce DATA.  But data is not information. 

What DxOMarks lacks is RELEVANCE

You must be blind then if you can't see the real world difference the extra DR can make in real world properly exposed shots taken with D800 vs 5D3. It's plenty relevant for some shots.


2172
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:48:25 PM »
I see a lot of defensive and insecure posts here.
I see a lot of Nikon fanboy troll posts, too. 

Just because 5D3I has DR of 11.3 and D800/600 have 14+, it doesn't mean you have to attack DxO and others.
Ok, I give up. You're right - DxO are technological geniuses, their Scores are the epitome of scientific analysis, the D800 does have 14.4 EV of real, measurable DR, and because of that DR, you were able to recover amazing shadow detail from a backlit shot - detail that revealed a winged pig flying over snowbanks in hell.

Whatever.

There are a lot of silly Nikon fanboy posts. However, the vast majority of the criticism of DxO comes from people who not only do NOT understand this stuff better than DxO, most of the critics on closer examination have no idea what they are talking about. You would think that showing a little humility would be good form when criticizing someone who knows this stuff in some depth (as vague hand waving doesn't cut it when you implement software -- you need to have a very solid grounding in the theory behind it)

Most of the critics, however, despite (or perhaps because of) knowing very little have no such inhibitions. Indeed, it seems that the less knowledgeable the critic, the less nuanced and the more forceful the criticism.

It could well be the case that there is a better method to benchmark sensors than those used by DxO -- however, no-one (including the know-nothing loudmouth camera "fans" on the internet) is able to present and follow through on better methods.

The criticism of the 14.4 stops for the 14 bit ADC is not only just plain wrong (their method is just fine -- the point is that you gain dynamic range by downsampling), it's also a bit of a red herring when you're comparing cameras of comparable resolution.  Those who object to downsampling (usually because they don't understand it) are welcome to the screen numbers instead never mind that this number is only relevant if you customarily view images as 100% crops. The screen numbers also show the Canon sensor struggling at low ISOs).

+1

(now that some seem to be starting to think you are correct, they are left with a comeback of "whatever" haha)

2173
EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:46:14 PM »
I see a lot of defensive and insecure posts here.

I see a lot of Nikon fanboy troll posts, too. 

Name one poster in this thread. Count me out for starters since I currently have a 7D and a 5D3 and zero Nikons.



2174
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Firmware?
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:39:56 PM »
I don't believe that there is any particular reason for such HUGE firmware upgrade.
After all, firmware upgrades are supposed to address some bugs or any particular issues with the device and I haven't heard about any of such bugs or issues with the camera.

They sure could fix up video features they left out, although now with ML I guess we have some of them already and will soon have more. I don't think ML will be able to deliver crop mode video though and we will have to see whether it can fix AutoISO for stills or not.

2175
EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixel Talk [CR2]
« on: October 09, 2012, 01:33:05 PM »
It wasn't a question! It was an answer!

Wait, I thought the answer was 42.  Now you're telling me it's 46.1?!?!?   ;)

Indeed, you got it! That guy who wrote that book about hiking had no clue.

Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 246