August 27, 2014, 11:17:53 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 - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: Today at 09:31:15 PM »
Yeah I'm not jumping ship. I prefer the Canon system. That said, as a first time user, the DR of the Sony sensors would make me think twice about Canon's commitment to sensor technology in the long run.

I think it's more a commitment to getting the most money out of an investment in facilities.  As I've written before, I'm certain that Canon can and will deliver better sensors when the market requires it.  They may walk backwards into that better sensor tech if their P&S line is forced to reduce output, and they re-purpose those facilities for DSLRs.  (mentioned by someone else earlier, I forget who)

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: Today at 09:13:08 PM »
Right now, Canon sensors are absolutely inferior at low ISO.  This is fact.

I'm not really interested in who sells the most hamburgers. If I was, I'd be shooting grizzlies with iPads and you probably wouldn't hear from me soon.

How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

Fortunately, technological improvements aren't based on this.

The low ISO DR of the Exmor's is extremely beneficial for landscape and wildlife shooters. I know a few shooters who even tossed their GND's.  Simply expose for the sky and lift your shadows later on with minimal penalty.

Michael, I think you may be missing the point of those (including me) who keep saying "but Canon sells more."  I think everyone agrees that better IQ at any/all ISOs is a "good thing."  That's not the point.  The point is that you, Aglet and other pro-Exmor folks keep reminding us of your personal needs.  That's great, and I wish you all the best in finding the gear that helps you do the job.  The difficulty is that Canon will not change their technology based on your personal needs, nor based on the needs of a minority.  They are not artists seeking the best quality product, they are a for-profit corporation.  Canon is interested in profit, and takes a certain strategy to achieve it. The strategy, which has been quite successful relative to their competitors, is to make very reliable products and systems that appeal to a large market segment, and support that with strong marketing campaigns.

If Canon products do not satisfy your needs you should buy another brand, you can't expect Canon to deviate from a successful business practice to suit a minority need.  This is not a question of art, it's a question of money.  Because I accept this fact I'm not offended that Canon's sensors are inferior at low ISO (they are).  I wish they were better, but my wishing makes no difference. 

« on: August 26, 2014, 06:37:41 PM »
I'm still confused. Are you saying that my lens would autofocus at f5.6 or f6.3 but not at f8 or f11 and that I should be using manual focus at any aperture smaller than f5.6?

When a DSLR auto-focuses it does so with the aperture wide open, regardless of the aperture to be used for the photo capture.  Once focus is achieved, it stops down the aperture to the desired size and takes the picture.

Because of the physical construction of autofocus modules, it becomes hard to make them work well when "aperture wide open" is f8, so typically only high-end cameras have this extra engineering.  When you add a teleconverter to a lens you increase the focal length, and therefore increase the "wide open" aperture.  E.g. a 400 f5.6 might become an 800 f8 lens with a teleconverter.  I.e., "wide open" is now f8.  That won't work for a 20D.

We can help you better if you'll tell us what lens you're using with the 20D, and if you're using a teleconverter.

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 09:41:51 AM »

The difference between current Canon sensors, and an Exmor, is not "you can lift shadows". We've been lifting shadows for years. The difference between the two is that you can lift ultra deep shadows that would otherwise be buried in red-banded read noise on a Canon, by 5-6 stops on an Exmor...and STILL have decent color fidelity and clean, random noise.

If you need that kind of shadow recovery capability...and I stress IF, I still believe a majority of photographers tend to shoot some kind of action at higher ISO, in which case Canon sensors have a very small edge over Exmor sensors at higher ISO...then don't hold yourself back. Canon may release something that can do what a D800 could do over two years ago at some point...but why wait until that unknown future time, when you could solve your problem now with a Nikon, Sony, or Pentax (or any number of other cameras that use Exmor sensors)?

As Neuro previously requested from the Swedish Chorus-of-One, I'd love to see more real-world examples.  The first example, sunflowers, looks marginal by that standard -- it just looks intentionally underexposed.  The hotel room might be a good example, but I wish there were a comparator image from a 5D3 or 1DX.  Those pulled room shadows do look really good, but how do they compare?

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 12:27:16 AM »
I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....
Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head.  While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body.  Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power.  Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power.  All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with.  In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor.  And that's not even considering the effect on battery life.  It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20.   8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:50:26 PM »
The problem with this is that the "entire package" in  DSLR's are all extremely similar.

A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.

The sensor does.

That may be true for you and, if so, that's a very good reason for you to choose a particular camera based on the sensor.  For others it seems clear that the "entire package," including lenses and accessories, not to mention reliability and ergonomics, does make a very big difference.

The needs for your style of photography may not be representative of the overall market for DSLR systems.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 12:37:30 PM »
@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales.  The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews.  Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story.  However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.  It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration.  You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies.  I believe Canon can do the same.  Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them.  Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.  When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors.  You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

Technical Support / Re: Memory Cards, formatting and storage
« on: August 23, 2014, 05:48:49 PM »
That said, 30,000 cycles would allow you to fill up the card and format it every day for 82 years... so in practical terms it really does not matter.
The typical format operation on a camera will be a simple re-write of the filesystem structure, and will not write over the entire card.  A good-quality card should do some form of wear-leveling, so formatting is not even a blip on the lifespan of a card.  In theory, you should not need to format at all between uses since every device used to access the card should adhere to the same standards for the file storage structure.  In reality this is mostly true, but I've seen stray reports of lost files when moving cards around.

In short, on good-quality cards formatting in-camera does no harm, and may give some small protection against file lost due to corruption of the filesystem.

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:15:49 AM »
Given four cameras, one with... mFT (4/3) sensor,
...another with a 1.6x sensor,
...another with a 1.5x sensor,
...and another with a FF sensor...


...a photo of a scene from the same position with the same focal point and the same settings (e.g. 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400) with all cameras,
...the photos cropped to the same framing as the photo from the mFT (4/3) camera,
...and the photos are displayed at the same size...

...then the resulting photos will be Equivalent.  In addition, if...

Here are the problems: as I said above, the comparison is irrelevant and misleading unless it's the same framing.  I will clarify that to say that it must be photographed initially at the same framing, without any cropping.  If you don't start with the same framing you are not comparing the IQ of the sensors, and the comparison is invalid.

There are certain reach-limited circumstances (which jrista has illustrated) where a high-density crop sensor can demonstrate superior IQ for a heavily cropped image.  However, that's not a comparison of the sensors themselves.

You must start with the same frame from on each sensor, or you have no valid data on which perform comparisons.

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:30:27 AM »
I'm no expert on this, so I'll refer you to: and to jrista's various write-ups.

Scenario 2: normalize for the field of view (20.0 degrees)
FF sensor    - 36x24 mm,     3600x2400 (8.60Mp), 100mm lens
APS-C sensor - 22.2x14.8 mm, 2220x1480 (3.29Mp), 61.7mm lens
4/3 sensor   - 17.3x13.3 mm, 1730x1330 (2.30Mp), 48.1mm lens
1/2.3 sensor - 5.76x4.29 mm,  576x429  (0.25Mp), 16.0mm lens

We now have the same field of view from the cameras. Each sensor will have the exact same IQ, the ISO performance and the noise performance will be identical.
In this case, what sensor size buys you is the number of pixels and over the same field of view, the FF camera has far greater resolving power.

To me this is the only case that matters -- the question is irrelevant and misleading unless we're talking about identically-framed shots.  With identically framed shots, a larger sensor will collect more light from the overall field of view (and therefore per-unit-area of the scene), even if the smaller sensor has larger pixels.  With our hypothetical identical technology, a smaller sensor with larger pixels simply cannot collect the same amount of light as a larger sensor.  Compare this to 35mm film vs MF film using identical emulsion.  To what degree that's important depends on the lighting of the scene.  Higher pixel density may give higher resolution (if the lens allows it).

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 21, 2014, 06:04:58 PM »
Obviously, the FF sensor takes in more light, but it is spread over a wider field of view and the light per pixel is the same.

But the output image (print, projected image, etc) is the same size, so the light gathered by the FF sensor requires less enlargement (attenuation) to achieve that output size, and this negates your argument.

So I believe you're mistaken: with identical technology, the size of the sensor is all that matters for low-light properties.  For ample-light IQ, total MP, AA filter, etc are definitely important for resolution.

I'm sure jrista will jump in here any minute to correct us all.  :-)

Photography Technique / Re: Photographer's Block
« on: August 21, 2014, 12:55:30 AM »
When you can't get inspired for yourself do something for someone else.  I've heard of photographers making free portraits for homeless people.  They schedule with a shelter to set up a mini-studio and printer.  The clients will often send these to family who worry about them to re-assure them that they're getting by OK.

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot SX520 HS & SX400 HS
« on: August 20, 2014, 07:55:58 PM »
They could have a new high MP unit in the channels NOW. They could have an innovative mirrorless body in the channels NOW.

Why do you think they don't?  Bear in mind that Canon has the best-selling and most-profitable DSLRs right now.  In light of that, what specific reasons might Canon have for their lack of high-MP body?  Have Canon shooters been flocking to Nikon D8xx bodies?  Or to Sony?

You may be happy with these new announcements, and that is your right.
Why do you assume that?  Perhaps we're just realistic.  Nikon has demonstrated that a high-MP body is not as profitable as what Canon is selling now.  Sony has demonstrated the same for mirrorless.  Canon does not want to sell your perfect DSLR just to people like you, they want to sell a popular and profitable body.

It might do you some good to pick up an introductory business textbook.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 13, 2014, 10:01:59 AM »
I'll go with possession is nine-tenths of the law
It turns out that's not true (at least in the U.S.)  You may want to talk to a lawyer about that before you get yourself in trouble.

Of course I also think if someone borrows your camera and takes a picture (for example if you are on vacation and you ask a stranger to take your picture), you own it.
I believe this is a grey area of law, see the recent athlete/fan selfie stories.

As always, do not take legal advice from anyone on the Internet unless you know for a fact the person is a lawyer with expertise in that particular field.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:52:46 PM »
Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology.  Now who owns the "selfie" and why?

Without coming to a conclusion on the original subject, only humans are considered people in law as far as I know (in most jurisdictions, right?). So these other cases aren't strictly equivalent. An animal cannot own property, intellectual or otherwise. It cannot sign a contract, nor can it commit a crime. Only humans can.

The question of whether an animal can own property is irrelevant.  Copyright is about what the artist does, not what others do.  Is there any difference in the actions of photographer in the two hypothetical cases?  Answer: no, the photographer's actions are the same.  Therefore, if the photographer's actions would not earn him copyright in the case of isolated tribespeople, the same is true for the macaques.

There is a faulty (I believe) assumption that every photo is entitled to copyright, and the only question is who gets it.  Several here have implied that copyright should be assigned to the human who has the most to do with the photo (by some vague definition).   This, I believe, is false: there is a minimum bar of action that's needed for a photographer to earn copyright over a photo.  To my mind that minimum bar is framing the shot.  Slater did not frame these shots, so he did not earn copyright.  It does not matter who or what might be the subject of the shot, or who else is involved in the shot.  If he didn't do that simple act then he doesn't get copyright.  The question of whether some other person or entity might be entitled to copyright is entirely separate.  It's entirely possible that there is no copyright on these photos at all.

It will be interesting to see if/how this is resolved by an Indonesian court.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43