April 25, 2014, 01:36:52 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 - sagittariansrock

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 49
46
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 01:07:27 AM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.



47
Thanks, BL. Very useful tips.

aj, to each his own. For my specific purpose, I need a cheaper full frame body to complement my 5DIII where I cannot take the latter, and where I cannot change lenses.
Also, thanks for sharing the information about shadow noise in the 5D.

I do understand one cannot get everything at once. I have to expect some trade-off for getting a FF camera for so cheap. I just need to make sure the trade-off is in the right areas. The AFMA is a bit of a worry though.

I did not notice a problem with my 2.8 lenses in regards to AFMA.  Anything faster than that, prepare to use your eyeballs and a high precision Ec-S screen :(

Oh, that's true. I can use the Ec-S with the 5d!

48
Thanks, BL. Very useful tips.

aj, to each his own. For my specific purpose, I need a cheaper full frame body to complement my 5DIII where I cannot take the latter, and where I cannot change lenses.
Also, thanks for sharing the information about shadow noise in the 5D.

I do understand one cannot get everything at once. I have to expect some trade-off for getting a FF camera for so cheap. I just need to make sure the trade-off is in the right areas. The AFMA is a bit of a worry though.

49
That's what I thought you meant. I think we are all saying the same thing with different words and reasoning :)

:)

As I am fond of saying, who cares what the DR is or the number of megapixels are on a blurry picture :)

Hear, hear!

50
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:38:46 PM »
Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

1div is old and on its last leg.  Dont see it lasting long enough for any reputable testing firm to do an official comparison against the 7dii once it comes out.  Lastly it does no good to compare something against another that doesnt exist yet.

That is a fair point, nevertheless that was the original topic of discussion.
This is probably why you must have seen some mirth being distributed in the first few posts before Jrista straightened us out. :)

51
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:36:08 PM »
Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins.

Is it also true for an older sensor tech. vs a newer (future) sensor. I mean, is it theoretically impossible for an APS-C sensor to gather as much light as an APS-H sensor of the past? Not a rhetorical question, I am actually curious to know.
[for example, I know it is theoretically impossible for a future APS-C sensor to compete with the 6D, for example. Pi had proved that semi-mathematically.]

And no, everything doesn't apply. FF is a technology Canon is continuing. So, for every APS-C there will be an FF counterpart (don't take that literally, I mean around the same time). APS-H on the other hand is dead. So for any new technology APS-C takes advantage of, APS-H has no new cards to play.


I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.

As I said, I defer to your greater knowledge to this answer. I personally felt Canon will replace the discontinued smaller sensor in high end body for those who want reach, pure and simple (not unlike yourself I am sure). Of course, now they get to sell longer lenses, hence more profit :)

52
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:16:56 PM »
Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

53
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 08:53:24 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.

Image Stabilization has one purpose, and one purpose only: To reduce blur from camera shake at slower shutter speeds. There is no other purpose for IS, thats its sole reason for being.

The notion that IS is unnecessary for focal lengths below 85mm was true. As pixel sizes continue to shrink, that notion will become increasingly less accurate and less valid. Smaller pixels register smaller degrees of camera shake. In other words, smaller pixels magnify the effect of camera shake to a greater degree. Were around 4µm pixels (+/- 0.3µm) now, but they will continue to shrink. Having IS on a 50mm lens will be far more valid at 3µm than it is today at 4.3µm. Having IS on a 35mm lens will be more valid at 2µm than it is today.

I don't know how small pixels will shrink...I think were going to have problems with other things before APS-C and FF cameras get sensors with pixels in the 2µm range (exponentially increasing in-camera processing power requirements, similarly increasing computing power needs just to import and process RAW images, significant increases in storage space needs, etc.) By the time we actually do get down to pixels a quarter the area of pixels today, I think the argument about having IS on lenses shorter than 85mm will largely resolve itself...the results will simply speak for themselves.


So you are saying, in addition to giving false confidence to inexperienced photogs (that IS is a magic tool that will allow slower shutter speeds no matter what) it was also valid for lesser sensor resolutions.
Fair enough.
However, there are still people claiming IS is not necessary on the future 50mm or the existing 35mm, etc. That is a fact, and I think that was Brad's point.
You type faster that I can read. No wonder you are a programmer :)

54
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 17, 2014, 07:43:50 PM »
At the risk of being flamed, I feel that the many photographers around here that proclaim IS to be of no use on lenses wider than 85mm are being snobs. It's as if they are saying, "My technique is such that I would derive no benefit from it and if you feel the need for it, well you just suck."  OK, that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you get my point.

I used to think the same way as you- the pros who suggest IS isn't important at wider FLs are snobs.
But let's dig deeper- there is SOME truth to it, as I have realized with time. Not all true, mind, because I still think IS is important.
However, I think IS gives a false sense of confidence to inexperienced photographers. They feel they can shoot a photo at 1/17 just because they are shooting with a 35mm lens with IS. But they don't understand the limitation of shutter speed vs subject movement.
Pros point at the fact that you realistically cannot shoot lower than 1/n (put your favorite number here) unless you want motion blur or you are shooting still life.
Now, for longer focal lengths, n is a larger number:
Consequently 1/n is higher, and 1/n divided by factor of image stabilization still remains high. So motion blur is avoided.

Now, less knowledgeable people have taken this maxim, misunderstood it, and propagated it at face value- that IS is unimportant. I think it is just a misrepresentation and generalization of otherwise sound logic.

55
Jon and Don, I think you misunderstood a few key points in my post. I shall clarify so we don't go off-topic.

Firstly, I am not suggesting APS-C sensors will ever come close to a FF or even APS-H sensor of the same or closely followed generation. It is physically impossible, we have had lots of discussions on it, and I am sure it has that horse is dead and buried.
When I said a future APS-C sensor (and I mentioned it WON'T be 7DII with a 70D-grade sensor) might trounce 1D series, I mean 1D through 1D Mark IV APS-H sensors, that was last designed before 2009. Hope that bit is quite clear. So let's not even bring 1D X or any later cameras, and certainly not FF cameras here.

Secondly, that same statement above oes for Canon being conservative with 1D series- I do not mean the 1D X, but the 1D APS-H cameras. Even when they released the 7D with 18 MP, they released the 1D IV with 16 MP. 50D that followed 1D III (with 10 MP) had 15 MP crammed in a much smaller sensor. So I do feel Canon has been conservative with megapixel count for their top-of-the-line sports shooters because they felt that market cared less about high MP, but more about noise and IQ. The same path was taken by Nikon for their Pro shooters. It's just my observation, please correct me if I am wrong here.

Thirdly, there is definitely much, much more to the camera than the sensor- as has been discussed ad nauseam. Let us not even go into that fruitless discussion. I was attempting to suggest that if there is a choice between keeping the 20-24 MP count and sacrificing IQ vs lowering it to say 16 and improving the IQ in a 7DII, Canon will try to go that route. I think that was OP's question. So to restate the question to you, do you think Canon will go the higher IQ-lower MP route or the lower IQ-higher MP route, everything remaining the same.

Fourth, and this is the vital take home from your post- you do not think Canon will try to replace their 1D series with the 7DII or its successors.
[Notice that you do mention 1D X from here on, so if you thought I implied 7DII replacing 1D X, trouncing 1D X etc., let's nip that in the bud. I very specifically meant the APS-H 1D cameras that have been discontinued. I think any mention of 1D X in this whole conversation is moot. I am not talking of any FF camera, certainly not the 1D X]
Now if you meant Canon will not replace its discontinued APS-H line, I will defer to your greater knowledge. I agree, Nikon has never brought out a high-end crop sensor line just for the sports shooters and birders, and APS-H and Nikon DX were both a technical compromise rather than a necessity. So that answers OP's second question- maybe Canon will not replace the 1D (APS-H) segment. Eventually time will tell.

56
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 05:05:40 PM »
Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
If they are looking for value they have the 70D.


If Canon wants to replace the 1D (and IMO that's the only reason for 7DII to exist), Canon will try to replicate the IQ as close as possible. And that will mean lower MPs.
Note that Canon was pretty conservative with increasing megapixels on their 1D line.
They must have noticed people who want reach are wiling to sacrifice resolution for light sensitivity.
Mind you, the difference between APS-H and C isn't as much as with FF, so innovation in sensor light-sensitivity might well allow the newer APS-Cs (maybe not 7D though, if it still has the 70D sensor) to trounce the 1D line.

57
I used a 5D for years - from 2005 in fact. You'll find the LCD, menus and transfer rates inferior to later cameras. Also it doesn't have AFMA so it's important to check a new purchase is accurate with your lenses. Ones that have a serial number beginning with '2' or '3' have both the mirror modification and a better LCD screen, so avoid ones beginning with '0' or '1'.

Ooc joeys are also much better from later cameras, but you're probably using predominantly RAW anyway so it's of no consequence. Obviously there is no live view or video.

Other than the factors I'm mentioned I think it's pretty close to the latest kit at 100 to 400 ISO. Perhaps a little harsher in tonal quality. It also responds really well to ISO 50 - or overexposing 100 by one full stop in Raw on reducing in post. ( highlights allowing).

In the UK a good one sells for £450. As a comparison a good mark II goes for about £950.

Thanks Sporgon, that was really informative.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 02:24:47 PM »
On topic: having used neither 1DIV nor 7DII, I can only surmise that the 7DII will have better IQ due to it's more advanced sensor and processing capabilities. Canon has discontinued its APS-H line, and the 70D is a already a better APS-C than 7D in so many ways for the value segment. So I think Canon will go all the way for the niche segment of a high-end user who need the extra reach of a crop.

I refer to my quote above, which as I mentioned was actually on topic, in spite of the humorless aphorism I (we?) received.  :P
I think there is a big market for a high IQ crop body. Birders, sports photographers, paparazzi. That would be the demand for a 16MP crop body. Maybe not as good at high ISOs as the 6D but with a lot of other advantages.
Think 7D vs 5DII- except Canon has more at stake here after removing the 1D series.

Now think of a 22MP crop body. What can that offer above and beyond the 70D? Not IQ, only FPS, build and maybe AF. Will that satisfy a large consumer base?

59
But as discussed... sometimes the a(whatever) filter can have a deliterious effect on the image, so I don't want the camera dictating what my image looks like.

If you are talking about the AA (anti-aliasing) filter, then shooting in RAW won't remove its effect. The AA filter affects the light BEFORE the signal is acquired by the sensor, so the image format is irrelevant.
Now, shooting in RAW has the distinct advantage of flexibility in PP, is a lot more forgiving to user errors, and has the enormous advantage of using a quad core i7 instead of a tiny Digic 5+ to do the image processing (in my case).
Unless you are really trying to save space I don't understand why you should shoot in JPEG, because even if you shoot in RAW batch processing to JPEG only takes a couple of minutes. Also, with the 5DIII I can shoot both (my wife gets impatient about posting pictures as soon as they are shot- long story).
So Dylan, why DO you shoot in JPEG? I'm curious.

60
It kinda looks ugly ... maybe its just the angle, but it sure looks ugly and unappealing to me.

It is the angle. Looks much better when you look through the viewfinder.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 49