August 30, 2014, 04:47:35 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 ... 44
181
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.

182
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.



183
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.

184
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.

185
It seems that many people are interested in film in part because it captures light with a similar range to the human eye.

Does it?  The eye is more of a 10fps video camera than a still camera, if I remember correctly.

Quote
I shoot in very high contrast areas with poor lighting (abandoned buildings), and dynamic range is actually the trait I care more about than any other at the moment.  Canon has only reached 12.1 EV, while Nikon is at least hitting 14.2 EV.

CR Geek has made a valid point on numerous occasions: the fraction of scenes where the DR is strictly beyond Canon's range, and strictly within Nikon/Sony range is very small.  Even in your circumstance, you probably need more than 14 stops of DR, so you may need to do something HDR-ish.

So, 
Quote
Why isn't Canon working on DSLRs with higher dynamic range
Who says they aren't working on one?  But if you mean why don't they put one in a near-generation camera, maybe it's because the market doesn't require it.



186
Final Update:

The first company I sent the card to spent almost a month trying to find a socket to read the chips on this card.  I started calling around and found a different company, LC Technologies, who makes their own sockets and were optimistic about support the Lexar card.  The first company finally gave up and offered to send the card to LC Tech with only a minimal charge.  LC Tech received the card on a Monday and by Wednesday, already retrieved the data and had a USB drive in the mail.  In the end, there were only 18 photos with partial to full corruption out of 893 total shots.  I also card the Lexar card back with the removed chips, so I can return it for replacement.

I can't speak highly enough of LC Technologies (http://datarecovery.lc-tech.com/) and definitely recommend you use them if you need to recover data from a damaged card.

Do you mind sharing how much it cost for the recovery?

187
THE POINT is that Nikon is not the only mfr guilty of inadequate testing and QC.  Stop gazing at your reflex mirror and pay attention. ;)

Just trying to make sure I understand your point:

CANON QA problem: one batch of rubber caused allergic reactions in some people.  Devices otherwise functional.

CANON'S Response: Recall and fix at no charge


NIKON QA problem: D600 and SB900 problems caused malfunctions

NIKON'S Reponse: (1) Deny; (2) Delay; (3) Grudgingly repair after CA lawsuit filed; (4) Introduce "new" models that are otherwise identical, but with the flaws purportedly removed.

Are you saying these are equivalent?

If yes, you are...um...how to put this gently...sadly mistaken.

If no, then your previous argument is void.

Quote
And what's with all the couging, you got some FPN stuck in your throat?

Perhaps it's oil from a D600.  8)


188
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 28, 2014, 07:34:16 PM »
I find it inconceivable that there would not be a new FF camera in testing....

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

It would be a miracle.

189
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: May 27, 2014, 11:30:00 PM »
Seems borderline inconceivable that someone reviewing a laptop image could reliably conclude that color rendition was "much better."  Sounds "hoaxy" to me...  Regardless, I'd be thrilled to see a sub 30 mp canon camera with much better color rendition, dynamic range and/or noise performance.

There is no way to tell if the test photographers concluded that the camera had these superior image qualities, or if the Canon entourage told them that was the compelling feature of this camera.  It sounds neither hoaxish nor entirely credible to me: it sounds like a CR1.

190
Some of us would just be happy if Canon fixed its sensor pattern noise and DR and kept the same resolution.

Now, you just need to go out and convince a few million to join your March Against Pattern Noise and Slightly Inadequate Dynamic Range.

Quote
Put the current 24MP FF sensor from Sony in a 5D2 or 5D3 or 6D and I'd be a happy camper.
Isn't that a D600?  How's that selling?

How much would Sony charge Canon for that privilege?  And what's the cost difference between Canon's in-house sensor and a Sony-made sensor?  Are you enough customers willing to pay that difference?

191
Canon General / Re: I was shooting in the rain forest today...
« on: May 25, 2014, 11:32:15 PM »
And before y'all start asking for amazing shots from the rain forest... there weren't any.  It's all green on green on green...

Really?  No near-macro shots of a micro-ecosystem on a rotting log?  No multi-colored fungi?  No critters peeking out from under a leaf?

192
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's D800E 30% sharper than D800
« on: May 25, 2014, 11:20:44 PM »
the fact that DxO have embarrassed themselves as "scientists" yet again by claiming the physically impossible.

Hmmm....isn't DXO a French company?  I wonder if any of their "scientists" were involved in that faster-than-light neutrino error a few years ago.   ;D

193
Could you explain it a bit, how can Sony cameras use Canon lenses better than Nikon?

Metabones adapter.

194
That's great, thanks for the unasked for and unwanted help!

<snip>

The more pixels with the better glass gives me better pictures! Technically they're better, and even more I take far more care with them, so get better shots. At the low end with my phone or Glass, I'll just snap away and hope for the best.

<snip>

Regardless you don't find us telling you guys that 24 isn't enough for you, so stop trying to tell us that 24 is enough for us.

For every one of you who has money to burn and a fetish for the newest/best, there are many more who simply need help using what they have.  Forum readers can't always tell the difference from sketchy posts such as yours.

Forum readers are not mind readers, just like the rest of the human species.  When someone answers with advice that's unwanted, maybe it's a clue that you didn't ask the question very clearly.

195
I want a high MP body, I can pay for it

Sure, there's no problem there; the problem is that there aren't enough like you to make it cost-effective.  The D800 and D800E are almost exactly what the high-megapixel crowd asked for about that time.  Sales are OK, but not great.  Why would Canon (or Nikon) come up with a whole new model for that market segment when it's been demonstrated to be less profitable than the 5D3 market segment?

There's nothing wrong with your preferences, just understand that you're in a clear minority.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 [13] 14 15 ... 44