September 30, 2014, 06:13:34 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 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 47
181
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:43:20 AM »

I believe this is the original version:  http://xkcd.com/386/



i hope it´s not just dual pixel v2....  ::)


ps: some of you guys should really try to get a life and spend less time on forums..






182
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 08:23:12 AM »
I feel that we are getting somewhere.
Oh, wait! That's what I've been saying all along.

The shared-transistor part is a different story.
I've never said explicitly which transistors are shared - and that's the key here.

Doubling-down on a weak hand is not wise.  I suggest you fold, and cut your losses.

Quote
Oh, wait! That's what I've been saying all along.

Whatever you've been saying, you haven't said it very well.  If you want to be taken seriously by some very well-educated folks on this forum, you might want to:

  • do your research before you make assumptions
  • be very clear about your definitions
  • cite sources
  • write clearly and concisely
  • not write antagonistically to people who may know more than you do

183
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 01:02:21 AM »
... but it's based on published material. 

Right. But that's still marketing materials.

They literally say two "photodiodes," not "photosites," or merely "pixels," but "photodiodes."  That's very specific and technical (the typical consumer has little to no idea what a photodiode is).  Why would they say two when it's really four?  From the marketing perspective, four is better than two.

Magic 8-Ball says "All signs point to 2 photodiodes."  You still might be right, but the bulk of evidence is against you.

184
EOS Bodies / Re: New Sensor Tech in EOS 7D Mark II [CR2]
« on: June 21, 2014, 12:46:35 AM »
Jrista, you are just assuming that Canon's dual-pixel tech is in fact a dual-photodiode tech.

See: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/standard_display/daf_technology

Quote
Each pixel on the EOS 70D camera's sensor consists of two independent photodiodes that function both as imaging points and as individual phase-difference AF sensors.
It may be an assumption, but it's based on published material.  What's the support for your assumption?



185
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 08:52:18 PM »
but then why is Canon developing a high MP body now if it doesn't think it is profitable?  Unless the high MP rumor is smoke in the wind
First, it's a rumor.  Second, you may have misunderstood the rumor: it said "Quite high MP count."  That's quite ambiguous by my reading.  That wording could simply mean it will be significantly higher than than 70D's MP count, say 24MP or 28MP.  That's still not "quite high" relative to the entire market.

Also, as someone previously said, depending on how you think about dual-pixel tech (or possibly the next-gen multi-pixel tech) it could be perceived as extremely high MP count, even if the the resulting raw image is close to expectations.


186
HDR is a lot like a woman wearing makeup -- it should not be immediately obvious it is being used.

If you look at a woman and the first thought is "wow, she is wearing a lot of make up"  She is doin it wrong.
If you look at a photograph and the first thought is "wow, that's some HDR" you is doin it wrong.

It should be difficult to tell if an photograph was or was not HDR, if it is done well.  All the viewer should notice is "wow that's a pretty photograph/woman."

 ;D

In both cases you must add "unless it's being done for dramatic effect."  Some women (and a few men) wear heavy makeup for dramatic effect, like wearing bright, colorful clothes.  Likewise, some do HDR for the express purpose of a slightly surreal, dramatic effect.  Both are personal choices.  I'm not a huge fan of either in most cases, though I've seen a few examples that were quite well done.

187
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Speculation [CR1]
« on: June 18, 2014, 09:44:15 AM »
I heard from someone who talked to photographers in the world cup that 7dmkII will come with:

I spoke to someone who said that their brother's mother's cousin's ex-boyfriend's lover said that it would come in pink.

Undoubtedly your usual source of information.

188

It was mobile phones they were using so I didn't say anything, if a DSLR came out it would have been a different story.

"Can I borrow your skyport trigger while you nip to the toilet?"

Eh....no!

Alternately, "my studio rental fee is X per hour, with a 1 hour minimum."

189
And, if they were in a hurry to get the product out, it means new bodies will be shipping soon, and they wanted to put the 4.x software in the box.

Then they just put it in the box.   I've had two cameras (PowerShot S95 and 1D X) ship with versions of DPP in the box that weren't yet available for download.   IIRC, the version with the S95 added star ratings and unsharp mask.

Sure, go ahead and burst my bubble of optimism.     :'(

190
Canon specifically state support only for the EOS 1D C, 1D X, 5D III, and 6D.  Seems foolish, hopefully they make it fully backward compatible.

Yes, a great way to annoy current, more serious customers.  It's possible they're developing a new raw converter, and started with current, higher-end models in the rush to get the product out.  Perhaps 4.1 or even 4.05 will support more models.  And, if they were in a hurry to get the product out, it means new bodies will be shipping soon, and they wanted to put the 4.x software in the box.

191
I was doing a shoot this past weekend - full portable studio set-up with backdrop, four lights etc and the model's family were taking mobile phone shots over my shoulder as I was shooting.

Even asked me to step aside so they could shoot using my backdrop and poses!

What do we think about this one fellow photographer?
Rude or okay?

Lesson learned: smile, generate goodwill and referrals, and then add new language to your contract including a checkbox with modest fee for use of your setup (and your time) during the shoot.  A large fraction of your success as a pro will be your people skills; try not to say "no" to a customer, but instead attach a fee to "yes" that makes you feel OK about it.

192
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark-II as an action oriented DSLR
« on: June 13, 2014, 09:40:35 AM »
My guess: It will be intended for two primary markets: birders and Lexus-driving soccer-moms.  24MP resolution for birders to crop.  The sensor tech will be a refinement of the 70D sensor tech, with slightly better output, but not as much as 1 stop low-light ISO.  It will be built, priced and marketed to make it a "hard choice" whether to get the 7D2 or step up to the 5D3 for some customers.  Initial price: $2100, but will drop quickly to $1800.

193
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Damn you 1DX!!!!!
« on: June 13, 2014, 12:25:28 AM »
I tried it at the store...fell in love.

I imagine it's a lot cheaper than marriage, divorce, children or criminal defense attorneys.    :P

194
So what's your intention?  Are you comparing sensor tech or actual cameras with FF and APS-C sensors?

I am comparing sensor technology, whilst neuroanatomist responds by comparing actual camera sensors. Very confusing.

No, you said this:

Given a "full-frame" sensor and a "crop-frame" sensor, made of the same "sensor technology", i.e. same size photosites, same A/D converter, same everything except area.

The statement is that a "full-frame" sensor gathers more total light than a "crop-frame" sensor.

Then you went on to discuss the center area of the FF, so I corrected you.

You are very sloppy and imprecise in your use of language.  Remember, on the interwebs non-verbal cues are not readily available so you need to be careful with your words.

195
The comparison isn't meaningless - rather, it demonstrates the point: it's why, given the current state of technology, FF sensors are better than APS-C, which in turn are better than 1" sensors, which in turn are better than....  You just don't like the comparison because it doesn't support your argument (to the extent it's clear what that is).  That doesn't make it meaningless.  You might as well say it's "meaningless" to compare a tripod to a monopod because it has more legs.

You misunderstood my post: it's entirely meaningful to compare sensor tech vs. sensor tech -- I got no problem with that.  The problem is when you call it a comparison between FF and APS-C: that's just lazy use of language.

If Sella wanted to compare tech he should have said so, but he used the term "full frame;" by definition, that is a sensor with dimensions equal to a frame of 35mm film.  That is the defining characteristic of "full-frame."

Perhaps you think I'm mincing words, but no: both discussions are valid, but they are entirely different discussions.

If you and Sella want to talk sensor tech then we'll talk sensor tech.

If you want to talk FF vs. APS-C then we'll include full illumination of both.

Sloppiness does not help Sella's dwindling credibility.

Ummm  ...  I thought I understood your post; the point of mine was to agree with you and disagree with Sella!  Perhaps I should take a nap....

My bad: I thought you were replying to me.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 47