February 26, 2015, 07:43:10 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 - Edwin Herdman

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37
EOS Bodies / Re: How does Canon respond to the D800?
« on: February 08, 2012, 07:00:08 PM »
Silly poll options.

I'm almost concerned that the new G1-X seems to have a sensor merely in line with 2009 APS-C cameras, but maybe they're just stretching the lifespan of tech on that one (doesn't really make sense unless they're purposely starting out modestly since the market is pretty much wide open there).

Not really worried about the high-end.  The D800/D800E look okay - resolution is better than the Sony 24MP sensor pics I've seen, as it should, but if the 7D's sensor is more closely packed, I think this camera is merely a small step ahead of the 7D, per-pixel (and yes, this is probably a more reasonable time to use that comparison, even though it won't be exact because of the differences between a larger and smaller sensor with respect to heat generation, power use, readout times, and so on).

Nikon's EXPEED III processor seems pretty capable here - frame rates nearly in line with the 7D, which is already very quick.

If Nikon goes with $6000 for the body, that would seem to give Canon a lot of wiggle room to update the 5D.  It would be interesting to see how much improvement Canon could put into a new 5D while keeping the same price; the $6000 body option seems covered by the 1D X.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D800 is finally here
« on: February 07, 2012, 05:22:14 AM »
I've had a look at the sample photos Nikon put up on their website - per pixel sharpness isn't at all impressive but the amount of detail you get to work with is staggering, even on the "regular" D800.  I'd probably go for the D800E, myself, even though I can imagine I'd run into moire a good bit it should be reasonably simple to just downsample and wipe it out.

Their sole ISO 640 image (from the D800) has a fair amount of noise visible in the shadow area, don't know if ETTR would help that (although the "original data size" suggests to me that it could've been bumped up in exposure a good amount) but it's a pleasing type of noise distribution, and I didn't see any noise in the subject areas.  Good detail on small patterns too.

Not a bad release so far, looks like!  Hope the 5D3 can catch up, but we keep hearing it'll be a "low mp" release.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:08:23 AM »
Quite odd that the primes are the ones with IS...I guess I'll (eventually) take one of them instead, just not sure which.

I'll be watching out for news of the Tamron zoom's performance as well.  It looks markedly bigger though (but less than a kilogram isn't really that much - maybe for a day's shooting).

PowerShot / Re: Canon PowerShot D20
« on: February 07, 2012, 12:06:06 AM »
The design of this camera is pretty far out...I like it.
Would be pretty useful to have a waterproof camera, and video too...not sure what I'd use it for though.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: 400 f/4, 300 f/4, 200 f/5.6
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:46:16 PM »
Great...120-300mm f/2.8 with 2X AND 400mm f/4 with 1.4x.  >:(

Will be interesting to see the image results out of it if it launches.  I don't see it being cheaper than the 120-300mm + 2X III combo, and (the part that makes me less happy) it would require me to get all new parts (unless I didn't mind losing AF on the 7D - I suppose I could always try to hunt down an old full frame or even 1.3X body though - and 800mm equivalence from a prime would be very nice).

Software & Accessories / Re: RAW vs DNG
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:42:24 PM »
DNG trades one proprietary standard for another.  Like the "Adobe RGB over sRGB" debate, it seems like another way to hobble performance so you can bind yourself more tightly to Adobe products (which I don't use anymore).

Software & Accessories / Re: TIFF or JPeg for storage
« on: February 03, 2012, 07:40:27 PM »
I agree with Grigbar.  The only time I would even consider saving to another format for storage is if support for a specific type of RAW file was broken in a new version, or if Canon was dropping support for it altogether.

The general trend is the reverse of this - old RAW files are having a better time now, with newer RAW converters than existed years ago (cf. Michael Reichmann).

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon t4i = 7d price drop? videographers PoV
« on: January 29, 2012, 04:45:58 PM »
I'm not sure what we're getting at here.  Yes, for an individual like the OP, the 7D might not make a big difference.  For many other shooters, the 7D is a better choice.  Since it's in a totally different market, the 7D's pricing isn't determined by the pricing of lesser bodies.

EOS Bodies / Re: Lotto Winner Cameras?
« on: January 29, 2012, 02:32:25 AM »
I got it - and getting rights to cover a sports event in one of the pro avenues will be far more expensive than the cost of providing a stills camera and a good telephoto lens.  The broadcast television equipment, though...that's another story, isn't it?

RAW vs. RAW, and JPEG vs. JPEG?  I imagine that must be what Chuck means here.

Canon General / Re: Where the EOS Digital Camera came from
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:11:24 PM »
Yeah, goodbye Kodak.

It's always interested me that Kodak seemed to pull Nikon and Canon screaming to digital, but in the end those companies started doing it in-house and Kodak has been left with nothing in-house.  It goes to show that if you want to stay in business, build it yourself!  Kodak's interest with consumer formats (like the stupid disc camera) seems to have been their focus, to the detriment of producing professional cameras.  Maybe this is because of the costs of manufacturing in various countries at the time - hard for me to say.  Whatever the case, it hasn't served Kodak well in the long run.

Canon General / Re: Canon G1X for street photos?
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:06:46 PM »
The G1X will hopefully fix the last problem to some degree, but having a smaller than APS-C sensor and a very slow lens at the long end, the depth of field will still be quite large.
This is essentially exactly the situation with DSLRs, except that the sensor isn't so much smaller than APS-C to make any notable difference (I expect the new sensor to be more capable for this purpose than the 18mp sensor cameras in fact).  Unless you swap the kit zoom for a Rebel, that is still pretty much just what you'd get.  So Canon is to be commended for making a camera with fewer parts and a smaller body yet most of the features of the kit.

Canon General / Re: Patent: Canon RAW Video
« on: January 27, 2012, 10:02:49 PM »
Surely it would have made sense to hold off on the C300 so they could build in this new RAW video capabilities so you can output 4k video. oh well, C300 II will be around the corner I guess, Canon are turning into Apple!
Just on the face of it, this 4K RAW stuff would require much more throughput and probably much more memory capacity than the C300 is likely to offer.

It's interesting that it's Canon filing this patent and not the other guys (well, making a small assumption there).  Further evidence Canon is listening to what people have asked for and moving to get on top in the video space.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: RAW and ISO
« on: January 26, 2012, 01:07:00 AM »
I see references to "brightness" in here.

It's true that ISO is an indirect control for brightness (especially in the case of the pushed / pulled back ISOs), but this is not ultimately useful, unless you don't care about making large prints, or you need the brightness set out of the camera (in fact you don't).  If you do any post-process work at all, however, you don't need to slave to make brightness "correct" in camera.

Instead, if you want to get the most out of every pixel, you ought to overexpose the shot (i.e. dial in 2/3 stop overexposure or whatever your camera needs) to pull as much shadow areas into the first half of the data as possible.

There will be less noise in the shot (especially in darker areas), and the RAW will be larger (more data to play with).  Pulling back brightness in post will not add noise, of course.

As always, there's a good, practical guide to this, found here (Luminous Landscape).  There are also some comments about camera makers and film camera era thinking, which is not worth beating yourself up about or trying to make sense of in strict film camera terms.

u mad bro...all o' yaz.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 37