April 20, 2014, 08:29:59 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 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 200
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:14:37 PM »
available in april? I dont think so....

and 61 af points? that is not possible. People wont be buying the 1DX then. Id think its something more like 12

With 12pts and 22MP people won't be buying the 5D3 then and remember this needs to seem current until at least 2015 most likely.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:11:30 PM »
It seems unlikely that canon would put the same processor in the mark III or 5 X as they have in the 4 year old mark ii when the digi 5 exists.  I just can't see that happening, it supposed to be a new version of one of there hottest sellin camera, not a iPhone 4G to 4GS kind of upgrade.

They said the digic iv for AF, just like what the 1DX has already been officially stated to do.
And digic v or v+ for image processing.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:08:54 PM »
I can't believe the FPS or AF.

If they had said 5-ish fps, and 45 point AF; that I could have believed.

100% agree....the frame rate and AF points are not to be believed, not combined with 22 Mpix at a $2700 price tag.  It spits all over the 1Dx's market positioning if that's the actual specs, and this isn't going to be a full frame 7D either, at least not from a frame-rate and AF speed standpoint.

I'd be inclined to believe 5 fps, 19 AF pts, at 22 Mpix full frame, and native ISO to 25,600, expanded to 102,400.  Add a wi-fi option for 802.11N and many wedding/studio folks will be happy.

5fps, 19AF 7D AF, 22MP FF would get spit all over by D800 though I think.
If they didn't get a high MP sensor ready then I think it needs the specs listed on this rumor, otherwise forget it.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D X or Mark III Specs & Release Date? [CR1]
« on: February 02, 2012, 02:00:55 PM »
These rumored specs seems too good to be true for $2700 (like others have said), considering that things like AF is the same as the 1Dx (more then twice the price) and pretty high frame rate.

And speaking of frame rate, the 1Dx uses 2 Digic 5+ processors. At 12 fps at 18MP= 216MP/sec. Scaling that to a 22 MP sensor, Dual Digic 5+ would be able to move 22MP at nearly 10fts.
One Digic 5+ would maybe do 5fts at 22MP??

So unless the 5d mk3/mkx has dual Digic 5+, I don't see how it can do 6.9fps.
On a single Digic 5+ CPU I can believe anything roughly under 5fps

I am assuming that the 12fps the 1Dx does is limited by data throughput, but the limitation could be mechanical (mirror movement), in which case the upper limit of throughput is below 12fps at 18MP, otherwise Canon would have used just one in the 1Dx.

So far though the digics have never scaled to a full 1:1 speed increase. I think dual digic have often led to like 1.6-1.7 increases not 2x. Although with so many factors in play it's hard to say for sure whether they have reasonable, cost effective ways to get near 2x in this case. Plus it can drive 14fps with mirror up so 14*18=252 and maybe they are only getting 1.65x out of it? 152/7=21.8MP?  So it's not completely impossible single digic 5+ could do it.

That said I still find these specs incredibly hard to believe. I really think the 30MP,6fps,nice AF rumors seem a lot more believable. Some tried to count ratios on the back screen and they get results centering around 30MP, although down to 22-23MP is still within margin of error.

The only way I could believe these specs is if Canon got tricked and didn't plan a 30MP sensor at all, got shocked by what their spies told them about D800 too late in the game to make a new sensor and realized that 18-22MP at 5fps and with old AF would get so destroyed by the D800 that they better soup up the body specs like mad and pull a Nikon and take on the D800 by offering more powerful body specs. If it is anything less than these specs and only 18-22MP it would seem to get crushed by the D800. And they figure not many sales for $7000 1DX and the few who afford that will pay for the crazy 12fps and weather sealing and 100% VF and all anyway and better to lose a few sales there than the whole pot and kettle to D800?

But 30MP,6fps,between 7D and 1DX AF just seem more realistic to me.

EOS Bodies / Re: 2 different 5Ds coming in 2012 ???!!!!!
« on: February 02, 2012, 01:46:33 PM »
I honestly don't think either of those specs works out too sensibly, the details don't agree well.

I guess I could see two different 5D one like what CR says with 18-22MP and 7.5fps and 61pt digic iv AF and one with 32MP, 6fps, 7D+ AF. I would've more thought the latter specs than the CR specs, if anything.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: February 01, 2012, 09:08:15 PM »

It was established earlier that it WAS two exposures : f/11 @ 1/250 second and f/2.8 @ 20 second

But then on his main presentation page why does he go on with his babble about how he pressed the shutter, trembling and got moon, tree and earth? At the very least he is being annoying and telling a minor lie there. For what? To seem pretentious enough to get $1 mil sales I guess.

And if he used the same 400-500 2.8 and cropped a lot for both exposures shouldn't he get some star trails at 20s and the other link I see says an 800mm was used so who makes an 800mm 2.8.

Anyway whatever, but if you are marketing to build up picture worth it seems wrong to mislead.

Maybe this is all a new episode of Seinfeld, J Peterman into photography now.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: February 01, 2012, 08:59:14 PM »
I just read his biography, and holy smokes, he's made some serious cash including a single sale at $1,000,000:


Yeah, and here's his backstory for that winning snap:

I will never forget this morning for the rest of my life. It was calm, and the scent of the fall forest filled my lungs. The mist cleared, and a magical reflection in the river briefly appeared. White birch trees, black trunks, a kaleidoscope of foliage combining to reveal an illusion of three dimensions. I pressed the shutter – once – and then the scene vanished with the morning breeze, never to be seen again.

In the light of recent discussions, I wonder whether the above actually translates to:

It was a cold morning and my head was banging after a night on the whisky with my mate. I sparked up a fag and fired up the computer to see whether I could coax a usable image out of anything from my last nature shoot. Bleary-eyed, I went into Photoshop, feeling about as inspired as a science student in a double-R.E. lesson on a wet winter Wednesday....


A scene like that is extremely unlikely to only be there for a second or two, almost surely did not just vanish (unless he includes perhaps that ripple pattern and it was either complete chop or dead calm otherwise or something)

It's his pretentious and fakery prose that are annoying.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: February 01, 2012, 08:57:02 PM »
good point!

instead of saying "i pointed my lens at the moon, released the shutterr and bang.... i got this great image". he could be a bit more "honest" in how he "produced" this image.


i can produce all kind of great images in post. fantastic landscapes never seen before.

but he makes it sound like it´s pure photographic excellence.
and he does it with purpose i think.

there is no word about doing heavy postprocessing on the image, blending two images etc. in the text below the image.

every serious landscape photograph will write that he used a ND filter to hold back the sky or uses image blending to get details in the sky. but this guy....

The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins. Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth.

Wow, I just read here that this was the $1 million dollar guy.
To get to the point where you can fetch $1 mil you have to be quite the operator and his prose, which is at best, a least a tiny bit of lies (he clearly implies a single snap of shutter which is absolutely impossible, what is for debate is whether it could be two different exposures pasted and combined from the same or two entirely different shots having nothing at all to do with each other combined, lots of odd things with super-tele and bright sky and no star streaks etc too).

EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Wait for 5D3 could be longer
« on: February 01, 2012, 08:37:36 PM »
The 5D MK II was announced about 4 weeks after the D700.  It took slightly over 2 months to get mine, and it was among the first shipped.  Adorama really worked to get a huge nmber of them shipped in two or three days after receiving them.  The camera exceeded all sales estimates, so those who waited to order had to wait about two weeks to get theirs.  Many were not willing to pre-order so they waited for months until the cameras were in stock, but, once cameras started shipping,  there were few who actually ordered and had to wait more than three weeks.

and some didn't pre-order from a big shop but walked into a little mom and pop local camera store and snagged a copy just like that on day 1 without issue even before some big chains even got first shipment even for pre-order people  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: From NL: Wait for 5D3 could be longer
« on: February 01, 2012, 08:35:29 PM »
When Nikon announces the D800 next week, Canon will be announcing something within a very few weeks.

unless canon had planned a lame cut down 7D-AF, 4-5fps, 18MP 5D3 and realized it would get crushed and has to re-tool up one of their better try alternative 5D3 test models for production instead?

anyway i'm getting silly here speculating on 30 layers deep of rumors

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 07:26:34 PM »
The 7D outperforms the 5Dmk2 at high ISO image quality per area sensor.
A 7D sensor scaled to FF at 46MP would have better image performance than 5Dmk2 in every aspect.

You keep saying that, where's your proof? I think it's clear that the 7D gave up ISO performance to hit the DR numbers it did. DxO labs is probably the most respected independent lab out there, and their tests show that the 7D is not even close to the 5DII in ISO quality.

Again, the 5DII hits 1815 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D is only able to hit 854 ISO before falling below acceptable quality.

The 7D does a decent job, but it in no way "outperforms" the 5DII in ISO quality.

So show me the proof, or I write you off as a troll.

And, no, at best a 46mp FF sensor based on the 7D would perform at the level of the 7D, possibly more noise issues cropping up from the larger size. It would still be subpar to the image quality of the 5DII in every category. The trade off might be ok for you, but some of us actually want better quality at high ISO, and a 7D equivalent FF sensor doesn't cut it.

Sensor Scores          5DII         7D     Bold type denotes winner in each category

Over all Score           79            66

Color Depth (bits)     23.7        22

Dynamic Range       11.9        11.7

Low Light ISO          1815        854

Edit - to include other DxOMark scores for the 5DII and 7D

Please educate yourself before you write about things you dont understand. Look at the nosie dxomark SNR graph and you will se that the 7D sensor outperforms the 5Dmk2 sensor per area unit.

Photography isn't just about technical specifications. I just read an article on Luminous Landscape that someone linked to in one of these threads and it reaffirmed some of my thoughts over the years. Lens reviews often don't show the real world, they may comment on how sharp lens x is compared to lens y, but they don't always look at real world images and other equally (sometimes moreso) important aspects of lens characteristics, such as bokeh and contrast (especially where it counts). To paraphrase the article, why have a sharp lens, if it makes the out of focus areas look even worse than they are already. Ok, it isn't the sharpest lens in the Canon arsenal, but the bokeh on the 100-400 makes me feel ill when I look at certain backgrounds (green woodland for example), that is rarely mentioned in the reviews and you find out when you try it for yourself. That is the important thing. Taking that onto the differences between the 7d and the 5d MkII, the facts and figures don't always match what I see and I think even the DxO stats don't do the 5D justice. To my eye, the usable dynamic range is significantly greater in the 5D MkII than the 7D. What the stats don't show, is that when the highlights on the 7D are blown, they start to get a colour cast, granted, it was improved by an early firmware update, but it isn't completely fixed. Likewise, the shadow detail might show lower noise in the stats, but the detail is greater on the 5D MkII. Conversely, the DxO technical data shows that the 5D MkII has a greater usable ISO, however, it doesn't show the quality of the noise. Yes, the 7D is noiser to my eye, but up to a point (i.e. when there is a lot of it or the detail is being lost), that noise is more pleasing to the eye. Many have described the noise on the 7D as more film like and while not completely accurate, it does have some truth. On a related note, when the noise gets too high on the 5D MkII, you get banding, which has been pretty much eliminated on the 7D. Banding looks pretty awful and is unusable, it was something I used to hate about the 40D, which suffered from the same problem. Again, when compared to the 1D MkIV, this is missed on the technical data. DxO shows that the 5D MkII has less noise than the 1D MkIV, yet many reviews when the 1D MkIV was released indicated there was little in it. Again, while I haven't used the 1D MkIV, so can't comment personally, the technical data doesn't seem to indicate what is seen in real life, based on those reviews.
In summary, what I'm basically saying is, don't always believe the technical data that is available, it may not tell the whole story or it may be of little relevance in the real world. Look at the technical data by all means as a guide, but then see things for yourself to see if a) it matters to you and b) your eyes see the same problem (or advantage) that the technical data might show.

It is true that despite all the banding naysayers things like banding differences are often real world noticeable before the often minor SNR and DR differences between models of reasonably similar technology.

Even taking entire sensor area into account the 7D will sometimes produce more pleasing photos at ISO3200 than the 5D2, when most of the image consists of very, very, very dark areas because then most of the image lies in teh very depths and the fact that the 5D2 bands more at high iso than the 7D, can in a few cases, make the 7D do better even taking the entire identically framed images into account.

The 7D often has vertical banding though which hurts it's SNR ratings a bit and kinks the SNR curve oddly. THis does vary quite a bit copy to copy some have this a lot more than others and it tends to vary in degree in different parts of the frame on any given body. I've never seen a bigger copy to copy difference with the CAnon bodies than with the 7D and vertical banding. It's gain rather than offset banding.

The 5D2 has more offset banding in deep low iso shadows than 1Ds3. Converters tend to handle it muchbetter than when the camera was first introduced though.

SOme of the recent sony/nikon sensor has less read noise and banding and not just a lot more low iso DR but a lot more usable low ISO DR.  You can also see that it depended not at all on teh MP count but only on whether the new column ADC system was used or not.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 07:19:45 PM »
per area
not talking per entire sensor

all the DSLR blow away P&S per entire sensor area, but some P&S are better per area, the thing is they have wayyyyyy less total area to collect light

But again...so what?  We're taking pictures - the summed output of all the pixles - not looking at the output of individual pixels.  Some of the detectors I use in the lab have read noise and DR that completely blow away any CCD or CMOS sensor - but those are PMTs, essentially one giant pixel.  So, who cares? 

You do a good job of refuting your own argument - if a P&S is better than a dSLR per unit area but that 'advantage' is negated by the smaller area, the same logic holds when comparing the 7D to the 5DII - the larger sensor area trumps the putative better per-pixel performance.

Unless you can wave a magic wand and 'grow' the 7D sensor to FF size, the 5DII is the winner.

Duh what do you think a 36MP 5D3 would be? A higher density FF than the 5D2. And what magic wand? There is plenty of talk that SOny/Nikon have 'grown a high density APS-C sensor' to FF size, the scale difference there is no so crazy that you need a magic wand to make it happen. The simple point is that high photosite density doesn't mean any terrible loss of DR or SNR so long as you don't go to crazy extremes.

And even now the 5D2 isn't the winner when you are 100% reach limited, that may be rare for many photographers but a not uncommon circumstance for others. I have both and use the appropriate one for the job as required.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can someone debunk this Peter Lik picture... PLEASE!!!
« on: January 30, 2012, 07:05:23 PM »
Too bad the tiny little tree on the horizon wasn't just a touch taller, the moon appears to overlap and block out a small tree behind it, but the tree seems like it might just barely be short enough that it's top might have just gotten mixed into the dark edge of the moon so perhaps the tree is in front as it should be, hard to tell, if it were just a touch taller it might have been clearly blocked by the moon (i.e. fake) but it seems like it's not quite.

Anyway it's generally best to believe the photo taker until you have 100% utterly solid proof.

It certainly seems like it had to have been double exposure blended or something, extreme one shot HDR or something, although nothing wrong with exposure blendings, it can often be truer to life, if anything. Then again in his description he makes it sound like a single shot, but suppose that would be but a small lie, although why he feels the need to talk about a single snap with hands trembling.... Something does looking insanely crisp about it all. It is a little odd the way he describes the timing of it and the rise and beginning glow though, not sure what to make of that.

EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* 5D Mark III - February 7, 2012 [CR2]
« on: January 30, 2012, 01:47:36 PM »

Donny you're out of your element!

Unless there is some tremendous new breakthrough that negates the laws of physics... you only get to pick two. 

If you want amazing DR and ISO performance then you have to sacrifice Resolution. 

If you want high ISO and Resolution then your DR is really going to suffer. 

No, no it does not have to.
The 7D actually has BETTER DR per area of sensor than the 5D2 by a little bit....

From what I've read on DxOMark the 5DII beats the 7D in DR at every ISO level with a final score of 11.9 vs the 7D's 11.7. 

What did the 7D give up to achieve it's higher pixel count per square mm while maintaining a high DR, oh yeah ISO quality. Look at the DxOMark Sports Score, this is their criteria...

"Sports Score is based on Low-Light ISO performance (values in ISO index). Low-Light ISO indicates the highest ISO sensitivity to which your camera can be set while maintaining a high quality, low-noise image (based on a Signal-to-Noise-Ratio [SNR] of 30dB, a dynamic range of 9EVs and a color depth of 18bits)."

The 5DII reached 1815 ISO before falling below that quality threshold. The 7D only reached 854 ISO before falling below the same quality threshold.

So yes, the 7D did manage to get close to the 5DII's DR levels and upped the resolution per square mm, but it came at the expense of ISO performance. 

I will admit the diffraction limit example wasn't the best... but it was the best I could find in the limited time I had  before heading off to watch the Pro Bowl.


Also where are you getting the info that some P&S have a better signal to noise than DSLR? I haven't run across that yet. Not saying that it's not true, but what good is it if the rest of image quality isn't there?

per area
not talking per entire sensor

all the DSLR blow away P&S per entire sensor area, but some P&S are better per area, the thing is they have wayyyyyy less total area to collect light

And sure the 5D2, if you shoot with the same settings, has less noise than the 7D across the entire frame in total.

dxo does appear to show the 5D2 still having a bit better SNR per area than the 7D although some other measurements showed the 7D a trace ahead

dxo shows them tied for DR per area at low ISO, some other sites had 7D a trace ahead

But that just shows that even a 48MP FF could easily have the same DR and nearly the same SNR, never mind a 30MP FF.

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 200