November 27, 2014, 05:46:47 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 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 50
196
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 10:32:01 AM »
The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF.  How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

Quote
EVFs suck power like crazy.  You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.
Yup, this one is still a real problem for event/action photographers.  For landscape/studio not so much.

Until you take that evf into very low light. Then It shutters and flops around like a fish out of water. (With the a7 anyway.)

For now, but it's not an intractable problem.  I'm not saying mirrorless replaces OVF completely right now, but it's definitely heading that way.


197
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:29:43 AM »
The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF.  How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?
The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.  I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image.  This is another plus for EVF.

Quote
EVFs suck power like crazy.  You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.
Yup, this one is still a real problem for event/action photographers.  For landscape/studio not so much.

198
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 09:23:09 AM »
Smaller and lighter body are the primary keys to sell mirrorless cameras.

Perhaps the keys to sell mirrorless to youI want the feature set of a mirrorless in an APS-C sized body.  I want a brilliant EVF, with live histogram, zebras and focus peaking.   I want to pick my AF pattern.   I want a three-sensor (color separated) imaging system so we can dump the Bayer filter and double our light collection per unit area.
I'll bet you that right his minute, all the major manufacturers have legions of crones casting chicken bones to figure out what magic combination of size, ergonomics and features will make mirrorless a huge hit.

Once again, those are features that you want in mirrorless. Others are looking for small, light and easy to carry around.

And I said as much.  The question is not what I want, or what you want, but what will make it profitable, hence viable.

199
I still like the idea of a sensor that covers the entire image circle (with "circular" image lenses) just so we can get rid of the whole concept of "portrait" and "landscape" orientation while holding the camera. It allows for conversion from one to the other on the fly in post.

Exactly.  And also get rid of those stupid vertical grips.

200
EOS Bodies / Re: DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....
« on: July 12, 2014, 02:12:23 AM »
Smaller and lighter body are the primary keys to sell mirrorless cameras.

Perhaps the keys to sell mirrorless to you.  I want the feature set of a mirrorless in an APS-C sized body.  I want a brilliant EVF, with live histogram, zebras and focus peaking.   I want to pick my AF pattern.   I want a three-sensor (color separated) imaging system so we can dump the Bayer filter and double our light collection per unit area.

I'll bet you that right his minute, all the major manufacturers have legions of crones casting chicken bones to figure out what magic combination of size, ergonomics and features will make mirrorless a huge hit.


201
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 6D N
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:09:14 PM »
about another 30% off without video feature. I'm in ;D

Remember the Nikon Df?  The price goes UP when you remove video. 

202
'Dark humor' is shooting with the lens cap on and then pushing the exposure 4-5 stops in post.   8)

But I thought "dark humour" was black bile.   :o

203
I'm not yet sure what Aglet's angle is:

here it's just dark humor in the form of satire.. for the sake of balance.
Hard to follow a good bit like unfocused's.

I forget which comedian once said that it's not funny if no one understands it.  I'm all for dark humor and satire, but yours needs work.

204
:'( Goodbye my dear 5d mk III . ..Don't let the door hit you in the A$$.  :o

I hear ya, man.
I was married to her older half-sister, 5d2, and divorced her.

Dude, sounds like Nikon really has you by the ballhead.

I'm not yet sure what Aglet's angle is: sometimes he seems like a troll, other times he just seems like a fanboi who would upgrade from an iPhone5 to the third production run of the iPhone5 because it had a shiny new serial#.  It's also possible he's just one of those guys who finds it hard to see anything from a perspective other than his own.  And apparently he didn't get the joke thrown-down by unfocused.

Aglet: of course everyone wants the best of all tech in a single, low-cost body.  And for those who do exclusively slow-paced landscape and studio photography I hear the D8x0s are great tools.  But just as it's legitimate to ask why the Canon's don't have the IQ of the Nikons, it's also legitimate to ask why the Nikons have crappy AF, bloated raw files, slow framerate and poor quality control.

Aglet wants us all to believe that a farmer is totally lame if he buys a pickup truck instead of Ferrari.


205
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Anyone own both Canon and Nikon
« on: July 07, 2014, 10:28:55 PM »
As usual, this query garners fervent rhetoric from those faithfully wedded to Canon. :)

I just re-read the entire thread and didn't see any "fervent rhetoric;"  would you mind pointing it out?  What I see are measured, thoughtful responses about different offerings.

206
Not according to my viewpoint, and don't put words in my mouth.

And pay attention!

I pointed out that Canon have a specific, limited identification of what is meant by "telephoto" in their lineup. I pointed this out as an interesting consideration - .

A rumor is not a precisely-crafted press release.  It's word-of-mouth, sometimes two or more conversations distant from the source (e.g. a friend of a friend who's an engineer at Canon says...)

There is ZERO reason to believe that Canon's precise definition (even if true) has carried through to this CR3 post.

You are trying to create a Swiss watch from Swiss cheese.

Quote
not because I am a pedant trying to one up other members

You might want to get another opinion on that.

207
CR3 makes this near real...right?

Real.  Just like aliens.

Aliens are real; the people who report seeing them, but consistently fail to get high-quality photos/video, despite the near-ubiquity of adequate-quality recording equipment, are not.   :P
Alien spaceships travel by projecting a tiny black hole in front of them and use the gravitational attraction to accelerate their spaceships. These micro black holes cause the space-time continuum to warp, and that warping disrupts the flow of photons.... and that is why all photos of flying saucers are blurred....

That makes perfect sense, and it certainly implies that sasquatch emanate black holes in their musk or flatus, which is why their pictures are always so blurry.


208
CR3 makes this near real...right?

Real.  Just like aliens.

Aliens are real; the people who report seeing them, but consistently fail to get high-quality photos/video, despite the near-ubiquity of adequate-quality recording equipment, are not.   :P



209
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 30, 2014, 09:16:38 AM »
Pixel size doesn't matter for low light performance. Total sensor area and quantum efficiency matter. It doesn't matter how finely you divide the light your receiving and converting into free charge. If you increase the amount of light your receiving (more total sensor area) and increase the rate of incident photon strikes to electron conversions, then you have better high ISO performance. It wouldn't matter if you had 10mp, 50mp, 120mp, or 500mp.

I get this, but I've wondered whether there might be some truth to the myth, though not in the way many people imagine.  While I accept that your explanation is true, it applies when using identical tech throughout the sensor.  I've wondered whether it's disproportionately more expensive to make high-density sensors and whether some compromises would be made to keep the costs of the higher MP sensors within reason.   The practical result would be that higher MP had worse low-light performance, but only because it's not identical sensor tech.

There has certainly been a LOT of research into making smaller sensors (which pretty much always have smaller pixels) more sensitive to light. That research undoubtedly has cost billions. That said, most of the research into making better small pixels has been done to make ultra tiny sensors viable...the kinds of 1/3" down to around 1/8" sized sensors found in small compact cameras, tablets, phablets, phones, and every other device that uses a microscopic sensor. Each of those sensors is usually a tiny fraction of the cost of one APS-C or FF sensor, though, despite having considerably smaller pixels (between 1 to 2 microns these days, with a new generation of sub-micron pixel sensors coming very soon.)

<snip>

You've written about all that before and, again, I don't disagree with any of it.  I may not have made my point very clearly:  I'm not talking about R&D, but about actual production costs.  I presume that P&S sensors can tolerate a higher pixel defect rate than SLR-quality sensors, so yield is pretty high for those sensors.  I assume that keeping the defect rate down in order to get a reasonable yield is easier (hence cheaper) with recent, but not leading edge, technology.  It's my non-expert understanding that there are many refinements that occur to get a beautiful new design to produce a high yield.  I'm assuming that this problem is increased for smaller pitch pixels and the needed smaller circuitry.  Of course, once you get those production problems worked out the yield is comparable.


210
There are three major reasons to make backups, and you need to cover all of them: (1)accidental deletion;(2) hardware failure of your primary storage;(3)major damage (e.g. house fire).  For the first two a Time Machine backup is probably your best bet, and a rotation of two if you can afford it.  For the third you need to keep an off-site backup, e.g. in a Safe Deposit box at a local bank, or in your desk drawer at work if your work situation allows it.  Your off-site backup should be encrypted with a decent password.  How often to rotate your off-site backup depends on how much data you're willing to lose.

Long-term storage is a different question: technology keeps changing, so there's no substitute for simply re-copying files to current media on a regular basis.  DVDs or BR discs will last you a few years, but you can't really rely on media stability or the availability of readers.

Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 50