August 28, 2014, 03:39:08 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 - Orangutan

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 43
166
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 06, 2014, 08:39:47 AM »
Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.

We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question.  Here's the quick summary:

That was kinda my point: if you can't nail down the question, you won't agree on the answer.  As a scientist, you're accustomed to being very precise about your questions and assumptions, and you expect readers of your work to do the same.  Not so for the general population....

Quote
It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet.  When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements.  It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.

While I agree with the above statements, it's also a typical (and sincere) behavior of perhaps the majority of the human race.  I mean damn, you should know this: the human mind is not inherently rational.  It takes very careful self-development to learn to overcome our inherent sloppiness and biases.

In this particular argument (actually, in most on this site) I think you're technically in the right.  But for some of these folks it's not trolling, it's just a more "intuitive" and less "scientific" approach to debate.  It's more "system 1" and less "system 2."

167
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 06, 2014, 12:37:25 AM »
Again Nikon uses better sensors at every single ISO setting compared to equivalent canon body. IE: 1dx-d4s

Again you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, Don't forget those aps cameras either and the 5d3-d800 and the Df.

You two continue to talk past each other.

Side 1 restricts the consideration to the parameters of particular interest, and draws a correct conclusion, e.g. 1DX at high ISO.

Side 2 chooses to address the product lines as a whole, judging generally better performance in Nikon sensors, which also seems to be a true statement, but which is not in conflict with Side 1.

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.


168
EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 05, 2014, 02:34:38 PM »
Marsu, you're spoiling all of the fun.  You can't discuss real-world applications, and worst of all, post actual photos that show what you're talking about.  What's wrong with you???  Get your head back in the clouds and most of all, stop shooting.

:-> ... to redeem myself: Before Magic Lantern got the dual_iso module I was constantly trying to argue that more dr makes sense which was not very well received esp. during the height of the d800 vs. 5d3 flame wars. I couldn't really argue back then because my good ol' 60d is maxed out @10.5ev so I had nothing to show except nerd speculation.

But now I can say: I was correct! I really can put the extended dynamic range to good use :-)

I think we all know more DR is better.  The question was how often it is noticeably better, and what to do about it.

The main reason I object to your most recent posts is that now I want to go buy a 6D to replace my 60D.   :)

169
EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 05, 2014, 11:54:28 AM »

I doubt there's anyone on the "Canon side" of these discussions who doesn't want sensors with better imaging characteristics.  The point "that" side is making (I'm a member of that side) is that all components are trade-offs, whether for cost, profit-margin, speed, high-ISO, etc.  Also, until there's a universal lens mount system (fat chance, eh?)  we don't have the luxury of assembling our kits à la carte: we have to buy into systems.  For many people, many subjects and many compositions, the Canon "system" is better than alternative "systems."  This is a situation where I'd love to see more competition via standard APS-C and FF lens mounts like micro four-thirds.  Until then, it's entirely OK to hope for better components, be they sensors, AF modules, batteries, etc) but to troll about it endlessly is a waste of time.


That all sounds reasonable to me.  It's somewhat ironic, perhaps, that the closest we can get right now to a universal lens mount system involves a marriage of new and old technology: mirrorless body + adapters + just about any lens ever made - provided you don't mind having to take the manual route for focusing (far easier than manual focusing on a dslr) and aperture (in most cases).  This is one reason why some of us like mirrorless cameras, though presumably not enough of us to have much effect on the overall market!

I think we're in a shake-out period right now: as you mentioned, we've got this intertidal mix of old and new tech, and the manufacturers and consumers trying to figure out which direction they want to go.  Unless Sony and the other mirrorless advocates can get some traction, it's starting to look like advances will move up from mid-range P&S, rather than down from DSLR, just as liveview and video did.

The only things I see changing that would be: (1) EU decides to step in and mandate universal lens mounts, as they're doing for cell phone chargers (the U.S. won't do it); or (2) someone comes up with a true hybrid EVF/OVF that's not a kluge. 

170
EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 05, 2014, 10:41:46 AM »
I know some people here get sick of this dynamic range discussion but I find it interesting.

The people don't wanting to hear about the benefits of more (i.e. >11ev) dynamic range probably would change their minds is Canon would be in the lead instead of Nikon/Sony :->

That's a bit of a straw man argument: I doubt there's anyone on the "Canon side" of these discussions who doesn't want sensors with better imaging characteristics.  The point "that" side is making (I'm a member of that side) is that all components are trade-offs, whether for cost, profit-margin, speed, high-ISO, etc.  Also, until there's a universal lens mount system (fat chance, eh?)  we don't have the luxury of assembling our kits à la carte: we have to buy into systems.  For many people, many subjects and many compositions, the Canon "system" is better than alternative "systems."  This is a situation where I'd love to see more competition via standard APS-C and FF lens mounts like micro four-thirds.  Until then, it's entirely OK to hope for better components, be they sensors, AF modules, batteries, etc) but to troll about it endlessly is a waste of time.

171
You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.

According to this http://nikonrumors.com/2012/10/25/chipworks-report-on-the-sensors-used-in-nikon-dslr-cameras.aspx/

The D3, D3S and D4 sensors were designed by Nikon and fabricated by Renesas.  It's fair to assume the same is true of the D4S.

Making a broad statement about who has the best tech on the market right now is a little difficult.  Clearly, Canon's APS-C sensors are significantly behind several other camera makers.  For FF, ya payz yer money and ya takes yer pitchers: find the body+lens combos that work for you and get to it.

Next flame-war thread:  The Judean People's Front vs. The People's Front of Judea.

172
<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys.  Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:"  You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems.  Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system.  That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch.   You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

Wrong, because your friend is a portrait/wedding photographer. Thus his photographic equipment are not only tools, but revenue-generating tools. This also implies, if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business. So, if a particular piece of equipment cannot satisfy BOTH these criteria, then there is absolutely no reason to purchase it; and he should then rather rent it, which implies absolutely zero investment on his part. (Compare this situation with the enthusiasts who have a day-job to support their GAS.)

Coupled with criterion (a) is the fact that as a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible. This then will invariably necessitate a constant upgrade/replacement of photographic equipment (aka tools) and this must be factored into criterion (b). Again, I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?

Wow, I'm impressed: a reply that's actually somewhat thoughtful.  Again, however, you argue from your own parochial perspective.

Let's start here:
Quote
Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?
This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.  The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional.  The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems.  For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business.  Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.

 
Quote
if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.
I agree with you here nearly 100%.   Again, though, you overlook the other side of that...

Quote
your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible
Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs.  I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it).  And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level.  There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock.  Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business.  Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market.  And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay.  If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment.  In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.

I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack.  I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras.  The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.

Please try to broaden your perspective.

173
I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi.  He has a D800 and some nice glass.  He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up.  Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.
But he didn't actually switch ...

<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys.  Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:"  You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems.  Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system.  That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch.   You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

** Note: ordinarily I avoid sarcasm because it's not very effective on the interwebs.  In this case I'll make an exception.


174
My comments are based on my (imperfect) memory of science podcasts and other science journalism I've encountered in the last few years.  If you have contradictory info I'd love to see a reference.

Regarding eye-witness accounts...the reason they are unreliable is people are unobservant. There are some individuals who are exceptionally observant, and can recall a scene, such as a crime, in extensive detail.

My understanding is that new research has shown this to be wrong.  There are a few "savant" types who have very precise/correct memory function, but for "neurotypical" (i.e. "normal") people, this is not so.

Quote
I believe the brain only fills in information if it isn't readily accessible. I do believe that for the most part, when we see something, the entirety of what we see is recorded.

Again, my understanding is that recent research shows that the adage "seeing is believing" has it backwards: it should be "believing is seeing."  The brain does not record raw image info at all, but constructs a reality that incorporates visual data with existing beliefs and expectations.  It's that highly-processed "reality" that's recorded.  As an example, back in 2004 there was that video tape of a purported Ivory-Billed Woodpecker.  Subsequent analysis showed that it was almost certainly the rather common pileated woodpecker.  The "eyewitnesses," however, recall seeing detail that would clearly distinguish it as an IBW.  Even if it was a pileated, those witness may truthfully and genuinely believe they saw those distinguishing characteristics.




175

B&H Photo's product page, under specifications:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1044728-REG/sony_ilce7s_b_alpha_a7s_mirrorless_digital.html

It took me about 3 seconds to find that. I just searched for "Sony A7s Bit Depth", and that was one of the first five links (the rest, for some reason, were all about the A77...)

That's the bit depth of the file, not the width of the ADC.

Why would they do 16-bit ADC, which generates a 16-bit data set, then downsample it back to 14-bits?  Technically you are correct that they're not the same, but it would be monumentally stupid for Sony to throw away data and incur additional processing overhead.  It's therefore reasonable to assume they are the same.

176
Feel free to debate the point, but bear in mind that I taught neuroscience to medical and graduate students for 8 years, and prior to that I studied the isomerization of 11-cis to all-trans retinal using time-resolved resonance Raman spectroscopy (the isomerization takes ~6 femtoseconds, if you were curious...a 'shutter speed' of 1/166,000,000,000,000 s).    8)


177
Here is a little test, for anyone who is interested. This is how my eyes work...maybe it isn't the same for everyone else. On a fairly bright day, with some clouds in the sky, find a scene where you can see the clouds, as well as the deep shadows underneath a tree. Pine trees are ideal. In my case, I can see the bark of the tree and the dried pine needles under the tree very well, while simultaneously being able to see detail in the clouds.

Could you post a picture of this scene?  I'm having difficulty imagining how I can simultaneously (without moving my eyes) see into the dark depths of a stand of trees, while simultaneously seeing clouds.  The closest I can imagine is a brightly lit flower nearer to me than a stand of trees, but both along the same line-of-sight.

You move your eyes, just not a lot. The point is the scene should generally be static...you shouldn't be looking in one direction for the shadows, then turning around 180 degrees for the highlights. The point is that, while our eyeballs themselves, our retinas and the neurochemical process that resolves a "frame", may only be capable of 5-6 stops of dynamic range, our "vision", the biochemical process in our brains that gives us sight, is working with FAR more information than what our eyes at any given moment process.

Yes, that I'd believe.  I think it's fair to say it's our brains that actually "see," -- our eyes just feed some raw info to the brain.

178
Here is a little test, for anyone who is interested. This is how my eyes work...maybe it isn't the same for everyone else. On a fairly bright day, with some clouds in the sky, find a scene where you can see the clouds, as well as the deep shadows underneath a tree. Pine trees are ideal. In my case, I can see the bark of the tree and the dried pine needles under the tree very well, while simultaneously being able to see detail in the clouds.

Could you post a picture of this scene?  I'm having difficulty imagining how I can simultaneously (without moving my eyes) see into the dark depths of a stand of trees, while simultaneously seeing clouds.  The closest I can imagine is a brightly lit flower nearer to me than a stand of trees, but both along the same line-of-sight.



179
technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

I would also like Canon to release a fully-mature mirrorless.  It would probably suit my needs very well, but there are a few outstanding issue that make the technology unready to replace DSLRs completely

  • AF tracking fast moving objects (progress has been made, but there's still a gap with reflex)
  • battery life (this has a long way to go)
  • EVF (this is getting close for general use, but not for low-light manual focus)

That's all I can recall for now.


As with Aglet, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone's needs are the same as yours.

180
I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't. ;)
I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

What kind of photography do you do?  You're obviously not unintelligent or completely ignorant, but you strike me as the kind of person who sees everything from his own perspective, as though your type of photography is the only kind that's important.

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi.  He has a D800 and some nice glass.  He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up.  Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

If you shoot landscapes, or other slow-moving objects, you can get really great photos from Nikon, Sony, etc, especially using lens adapters and third-party (even Canon) glass.  If your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how good the sensor if the rest of the camera can't give you a well-focused shot at the moment you want it.


Quote
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

I appreciate that.  I would like some pressure on Canon to continue to improve.  However, I don't want them to drop all their strong features just to be a hunk of metal with a great sensor.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 43