August 21, 2014, 10:59:16 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 ... 229
EOS Bodies / Re: grip gives fps boost on 5D3 to 6.7-6.9fps????????
« on: March 20, 2012, 05:04:04 PM »
no. they would have said so. they have to protect the 1DX :)

unless they are waiting to trumpet the spec until all the 1DX pre-orders and have shipped and they are too late to return and are protecting 1Dx that way  ;D

i doubt it though, just wishful thinking most likely

EOS Bodies / Re: grip gives fps boost on 5D3 to 6.7-6.9fps????????
« on: March 20, 2012, 05:02:40 PM »
The 6.9fps rumour that was so "black and white" had to of come from somewhere. Perhaps a prototype had it and they removed it for general release for some reason or another? Would be awesome if the grip did give the boost, i'm definately going to keep my fingers crossed.

yeah maybe that was just an alternate pro-type, a real shame if they went with the 6.0fps one in the end, especially for $3500 and zero improvements to the sensor, at all, for low ISO shooting.

it's totally foolish but I still hold out hope that one rep was correct, although it's easy to think of hundreds of reasons why it makes sense for it to not be true hah

EOS Bodies / Re: grip gives fps boost on 5D3 to 6.7-6.9fps????????
« on: March 20, 2012, 04:59:13 PM »
LOL. Canon isn't Nikon. They don't make you get a grip to get another .7-.9 FPS out of your camera.

Well it wouldn't be anything to LOL over. If you got an extra frame, you got an extra frame and that can mean the difference between 1 good frame from a sequence vs. 2 or 1 vs. none.

EOS Bodies / Re: Some unanswered Mk III questions
« on: March 20, 2012, 01:34:50 AM »

Well, metering, at the very least, will always occur. Even in M mode, it is essential so the camera can handle nuanced changes in lighting and still expose according to the settings you choose. You can move AF start to a different button, and only activate AF when you want to...that might help improve burst rate to some degree.

" is essential so the camera can handle nuanced changes in lighting and still expose according to the settings you choose."

Let's say my settings are ISO 3200, 1/125 at f/1.4. Those remain absolutely consistent, because I've set my exposure and don't need the meter anymore. No matter what the meter reads, my settings are ISO 3200, 1/125 at f/1.4. I'm in manual mode. The meter should have absolutely no bearing on the speed of operation of the camera. That it does is absurd.

Well, not really. Actual ISO settings, vs. selected ISO settings, are not always the same. The camera has to account for light transmission differences in each lens as they are not all the same, and different element types transmit light differently. Diaphragms don't always stop down "neatly", and the actual light that passes through them is not as entirely uniform as one would think given the "ideal" settings available in the camera. Most Canon lenses are chipped to provide the camera with statistics about exactly how they transmit light, and the meter is still used to make fine adjustments to the actual ISO setting that is used when you expose to account for small differences. Even taking all those extra nuances into account, an advanced camera like the 7D still can't always correct deficiencies in specific lens designs. Some lenses always under or over expose by around 1/3rd of a stop on some cameras, while on others they may expose exactly correct.

If you were to take 10 shots of the same scene, all 10 shots probably wouldn't come out exactly identical. Even if they appeared identical, if you were to do a scientific measurement of the ISO of the shot based on the RAW pixels, its doubtful it would always come out at exactly 3200 or even be the same every time. The camera is still doing a lot of work behind the scenes to help your exposures come out as "correctly" as possible.

And no it doesn't adjust your M mode settings secretly behind the scenes, it doesn't do stopped down metering, the only actually change it would ever make is for lenses faster than f/2.8 and it's a fixed amount of gain having nothing to do with metering.

EOS Bodies / Re: grip gives fps boost on 5D3 to 6.7-6.9fps????????
« on: March 20, 2012, 01:28:44 AM »
Considering that it is not listed in the grip description anywhere it seems very hard to believe.
Ah, almost certainly just another wild tale from someone hoping for more than we are getting.

EOS Bodies / grip gives fps boost on 5D3 to 6.7-6.9fps????????
« on: March 20, 2012, 12:33:01 AM »
A crazy rumor from DPR. But one person says they heard it "somewhere" and another claims that he just went to a demo 3 days ago and the rep told him that the grip increases fps, to something probably about 6.7fps, maybe 6.9.

I'm not sure I buy it, but wow, that would be cool if so. It might also explain all those rumors that had all the 5D3 specs on target but then were off with the fps 6.9fps vs 6.0fps.

If it could do 7fps gripped that would be pretty awesome, you really have yourself a true action cam then (When you are doing serious sports you might grip the body anyway, but unlike 1 series you can then toss the grip for a nice sized camera for everything else). It'll still be awful for high dynamic range shooting at low ISO compared to the D800 but if it has better video, similar high iso, if the AF is awesome, an dif it can hit 7fps gripped it starts to make a bit more sense. It'll still be worse for ISO100-400 landscape stuff and for long reach wildlife stuff but it might be a nicer generalist action/sports/wedding/video cam perhaps.

Probably foolish to get my hopes up over this as it sounds a bit fanciful, but wow if that guy really did hear that from the rep and the rep really did know what he was talking about. There still seem to be a lot more reasons to doubt it though, but still.

EOS Bodies / Re: The Megapixels are Coming [CR1]
« on: March 18, 2012, 12:12:23 AM »
Two TC's are added to a lens increasing magnification, spatial resolution remains constant, yet we are capable of "seeing" more detail in our much larger subject, even at a LOWER spatial resolution. Magnification and spatial resolution are not the same. Magnification and spatial resolution are disjoint concepts that can vary independently. Increasing magnification by adding teleconverters, while keeping spatial resolution constant, DOES increase the apparent detail we are capable of observing...because OUR SUBJECT IS LARGER RELATIVE TO THE FRAME FOR A GIVEN RESOLUTION.

Well, thats the best I can do. If a small animated picture isn't worth 4000 words, then no amount of proof in this case will sway your opinion. I do indeed believe science backs up what I've said here.

You seem to be arguing over things he didn't claim and missing his point and fixated on keeping the sensor disjoint.


Interesting, but where this guy's credibility falls apart a bit is where he claims that this show a "real world example" of the Sony sensor's lower read noise.  Yeah, pushing an image six stops is really a real world example.  Can you imagine a conversation between a professional architectural photographer and their client:

"No, I didn't bother to light your interior photo correctly, I decided to shoot it six stops underexposed and then push the shadows in post; look it's fine if you don't want to print it larger than 8"x10", especially if you only want it black and white". 

You can't re-light nature though.

This doesn't change the fact that the 16MP Sony crop sensor has lower read noise than the 18MP Canon, just that it's not quite as relevant as is made out in these videos.  I doubt you would see such vast differences in actual "real world" use, which is probably why we don't see it in 99.9% of photos.   

it depends how and what you want to shoot, plenty of shots it's no big deal at all, but it's not easy for some to run into a barrier relatively easily at times either

I would also mention that the jury is still out on how well the latest Canon sensors will perform until we have some real world tests; this shouldn't be far away with the 5D MkIII now shipping.  There is also this point made by Thom Hogan about the sensors in the latest Nikons:

released version already tested, the one copy looked at had 10% more read noise than the IR pre-release copy, so again 5D3 looks to be the same as the 5D2 in this regard

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Real video samples from 5d Mark iii?
« on: March 17, 2012, 08:11:55 PM »

Thanks for sharing.

Finally, some indications that the Mark III is indeed a step up for video. It is worth taking a look at this quick hands-on review.

"a little hissy compared to a quality recorder and mic"

I wonder if it is same horrendously hissy as the 7D/5D2 or a lesser degree of hissy?
With the 5D2 you need to use a juiced-link pre-amp or something if you record with the cam otherwise it is hissy beyond all get out and even with that, it can be hissy if you are trying to pick up slightly quieter stuff.

I'm too much of an amateur to tell from the specs which is better for landscape photography. 

I've read multiple posts on various sites that the D800 is better. 

If you wanted to just do landscape photography, in a variety of environments, for the purpose of selling framed prints, selling cards, and entering contests, can you tell just by looking at the specs which one is better?

Thanks!  I'll go back to my T1i now. But I'm going to buy one of the two.

For landscapes and nothing more, I'd say D800, more dynamic range and more mega-pixels. More DR could surely help some shots, more MP may or may not depending upon what you do and what your goals are.

What lenses do you have for the T1i already?

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Real video samples from 5d Mark iii?
« on: March 17, 2012, 01:53:29 PM »
From all the videos I've seen and with Canon's record towards video, I'm ready to be disappointed again. Every clip I've seen (even the side by sides with the old MK2), it looks like the same up res'd 700 lines of resolution and NOT the 1000 lines that defines True HD. The 5D3 does not look any sharper than the soft 5D2, which is really sad.

For what Canon is charging and how long they've made us wait, they OWE their loyal video customers 2012 video functions that does TRUE HD at 1000 lines.

Either that or come out with the 4K DSLR by NAB. I would hope that the 4K would be true HD. Not really sure what they are trying to protect by releasing a soft 5D3. I work in TV in LA, and I don't know of anyone who has bought a C-300 yet. It's not like they are flying off the shelf because they're so over-priced.

So PLEASE Canon if you are reading this, just give us real HD video. Even the cheapo GH2 has true HD.

Especially since 22MP is probably all because they meant to make it have superior video.

I still have a hard time believing that it won't be sharper. I mean how could it not? Unless it's just the in cam codec chip is just set to be very poor about retaining high frequencies or something.

Do we have confirmation that the Mk III is binning pixels? Everything Canon has said implies that moiré is being removed by the DIGIC 5+ processor, and mentions nothing about binning.

Also, if the sensor is being binned, why is the maximum sensitivity of the movie mode lower than than that of stills mode? Binning should allow for higher ISO sensitivity, not lower.

The idea that it uses 3x3 pixel binning is based on some quote from a Canon spokesperson regarding the video in the 1DX, I believe.  I think he said something along the lines of "all pixels are being read out on the 1DX" and then someone said the 5DIII did something similar--and now for whatever reason everyone assumes it's 3x3 binning.

That said, canceling out aliasing in post is like virtually impossible without absolutely destroying resolution.  And the 5DII only skipped pixels in one axis it seems, probably binning them in the other.  So it's reasonable to conclude (or at least hope) its not 3x3 pixel skipping, which should be much worse....

This reasoning is still just a bit crazy.  Not just because the idea is based on quote regarding a different camera without a neat 1080p divisor res'ed sensor but moreso because the 5DIII's sensor doesn't divide into 1920X1080 neatly as the c300's does.  Bayer is 1:2:1 in terms of how R:G:B are represented.  Apply that to 5760X3840 and you have 1440X810 for two channels and 2880X1620 for the other.  Not 1080p at all.  If the c300 is doing what people label 2x2 pixel binning, it's getting true 1080p out of it.  If the 5DIII is doing the same process but 3x3, it's getting upscaled "810p" out of it.

Are you sure 3x3 means 810p??

Wouldn't each block of 3x3 goes to one pixel so you get like 5 greens and 2 reds and 2 blues of info going into a pixel of the 1920x1080 output?

GBG   to one true color pixel  perhaps?

Some place Canon said something about, on sensor, it combines it down from the entire frame and send 1920x1080 to the digic, I thought.

assuming things work as on paper:

the AF! actually a bit better than even I had hoped for
(they should make a second grip that takes a new battery that drives super-tele AF motor full speed, to complete the picture, then ;D ;D ;D ;D)

the 3x3 sampled video! (hope it is sharp though, early reports say the old GH2 looks sharper, but I think it is just because all we have seen is re-compressed and/or high ISO footage with strong NR so far)

the 6fps! (although 7fps woulda been nicer since they left it at the same 22MP), but 6fps is def better than 5 for sure and way better than 4

the improves shutter lag and mirror black out times!

the silent shutter mode without using liveview

the outline on the histogram!

the even better image reviewing

the hopefully solid, full 2/3 stop better high iso!

the wide/tele settings for MFA!

the 7D-like movie/stills mode flip switch (I just wish they kept shutter,iso,aperture, etc. settings for movie mode and for still separate, it's really a pain if you try to quickly go from a few stills to a little video and back when lighting conditions are changing, you waste so much time resetting everything, it can be really bad, plus for still during video, the same settings often are really poor for stills; maybe they did fix this???)

(negs: autoiso remarkably still bungled/crippled for no good reason, although the next matter more: the zero ISO 100 DR improvement (this one in particular  :'(), no replacement view screens, no 30MP (this one too  :'(, between this and the DR not one bit of better for low iso and/or distance work), the not amazing metering that is a bit out of date vs. competition, price a bit high)

EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X - f/8 Issue Activated?
« on: March 17, 2012, 02:36:04 AM »
On this thread,4366.0.html

I read the following (BLUE PARAGRAPH)

If you also think this is rubbish, fill out a Canon online contact form and tell them, maybe they will do something about, they activated the F8 autofocus for the 1DX didnt they? Maybe there is still hope.

Can someone confirm this please? if so, link??

Thanks! - Bird Photography

Just looking over the manual and seeing how there are so many different AF-point types allowed for different lenses makes me think it's really and angle and brightness thing and I think when the one rep was like "so how would 20% hit rate be?" that might be what it might be like. I think they just focused on making it nail things f/5.6 and below instead.

EOS Bodies / Re: Hugely Disappointed In 5D III Price
« on: March 16, 2012, 02:24:13 AM »
The D800 looks way better there, but it doesn't seem fair that they seem to have shot the D800 from much closer in. Maybe if they had shot the D800 from farther out it would have had bad moire too?

you do thats why i have a 550d and a 7D, because im a Nikon troll

Your post reads as if you are unhappy with Canon and you would like to be with Nikon - so that would not be unreasonable.

Im because i was expecting a bit more from the 5d, especially if im using a 7d, it would be a small improvement.

oo yes i forgot, it seems that the moire is badass on the 5d compared to the D800 in video, well it seems that the best card the Canon had is not that good anymore:

Moire test of 5dMarkus the 3rd. vs the D800:


Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 229