April 19, 2014, 03:54:50 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 ... 28
EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 08:30:30 PM »
Thanks for sharing that pearl of wisdom.  I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.

FWIW, calling someone "snarky" translates quite universally as rude, so thanks for that (FYI, that was sarcasm).

Well, I didn't intend to be that rude, and maybe we understand the word "snark" differently.  My search yields "snide remark" as the origin.  There are various common usages, many including "sarcastic."  Your reply to  Don Haines struck me as snide and/or sarcastic, and still does.  If you didn't intend to be snide or sarcastic then I apologize.  If you know of a different meaning I'd love to hear it.

I always appreciate people who are as sage as they are jovial.


EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 06:30:51 PM »
Sounds good, might help me cope with those on this forum who are sadly devoid of anything remotely resembling a sense of humor...   ::)

Protip:  I can tell you that "sense of humor" does not translate so well on the Interwebs.  That's why comedy writers on the web are so well-paid (  ;D ).  I have been on both ends of this problem.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 05:40:33 PM »
Naah, a 43mm diameter circular sensor would be perfect...no wasted image circle or sensor area.  What about production cost?  No waste there, either...after all, they can just ball up the excess silicon wafer and roll it out for another round of cutting, just like cookie dough.  Mmmmm...wafers and cookies, I need a snack!

I see you needed to get in your quota of snark today.

Waste?  Sure, allowing some of the silicon to go unused is certainly waste, there's no doubt about that.  But then, for all of us who don't make a living out of it, it's all waste.  Every camera that sits unused is wasted.  Waste is particularly common for all those who get new e-toys (e.g. smart phones) frequently, either due to upgrade envy or through negligent loss/damage.  Losing some silicon to a (relative) minority of pros and serious amateurs certainly requires a cost-benefit calculation.  However, we're looking at 3-5 years (pulling numbers out of the aether) before pro-grade mirrorless becomes dominant; in that time, the costs associated with the wasted silicon almost certainly will have diminished.

And waste is already occurring in DSLR's: consider those who crop almost every shot (e.g. birders);  they are also wasting silicon because a large fraction of their pixels rarely contribute to the final image.

So yes, there will be waste; the only question is whether it's worth the benefit of a larger sensor area, without having to replace all of your glass.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 01:02:36 PM »

You can't get 36x36mm in the image circle without cutting off the corners... but then you could go a larger format, live with faded corners on the full image, and crop to the format you desire

Precisely.  I've posted this before: for pro and prosumer cameras I'd like to make the crop in post, or have manual crop selection on the body.  It would be a choice, like aperture.

EOS-M / Re: EOS M2 Shows up in DPP Literature
« on: September 22, 2013, 10:10:12 AM »
Let's be honest.  All three people that wanted an EF-mount mirrorless camera already bought one.

I want one but don't yet have one.  My first (consumer) digital camera had an EVF, which I really liked.  I'm very much looking forward to the day that we can leave the SLR mirror on the dustbin of obsolete technology.  Many will argue that a mirror allows them to see the frame as it really is, but I can do that with my naked eye.  I want to see the frame as the sensor sees it, so I have a better idea of what the resulting image will actually look like.

I may well get an M2, but what I really want is an SLR-replacement with fast AF and fast EVF refresh.  The mirror assembly is a waste of space and weight, and impedes the introduction of 36 x 36 sensors to replace "full-frame."  Good riddance.

Software & Accessories / Re: Cataloging
« on: September 14, 2013, 09:10:45 AM »
In an ideal world I want to be able to go into Windows Explorer, right click on a photo and have a drop down list of tags with tick boxes that I can select. I then want to be able to search on the tags.

As far as I can tell, you can do the searching but not the tagging with Windows Explorer.  See this link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa965711%28v=vs.85%29.aspx  Here's an example query:  tags:"january 2013*"

Also, maybe Digikam: http://www.digikam.org/node/700

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Problem: 70D saving 0-Byte files
« on: September 07, 2013, 04:02:10 PM »
that I can see the picture after the shot for 1-2 seconds. But if I look back/in the memory then the Camera tells me that there is an error.

If this has been true with several memory cards, which were formatted in the camera, then there's basically one last thing to try before you go for a replacement: turn off the camera, take the battery out, and leave the battery out for an hour or more.  You might even recharge the battery while it's out.

If the problem continues when you put the battery back in and turn it on, then the camera almost certainly has a defect you can't fix, and you'll need to exchange it.

If it works correctly following the battery test, I would still test it quite a bit in the next week.  Turn it off and on; download images.  Remove/re-insert the battery.  If it continues to work well, you may simply have found a bug in the firmware that will be identified and fixed later.  If the problem recurs, then it goes back to Canon.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 09, 2013, 01:17:40 AM »

What I meant was that I think it's unlikely that they can lock down all the specs of the individual components a year or more in advance so that each component group (sensor, firmware, AF, physical controls, body) can have exact specs to work toward.

Unlikely? How?

Components move from R to D at different rates.  It would be a major marketing disadvantage to be unable to respond to market conditions, or to adjust components, for  such a long time.  Here's a video of teardown of a 5D2.  It looks very modular to me. 
Canon 5D Mark II Camera Teardown and Rebuild Small | Large

Consider that the production line will need to be setup, inventory needs to be ordered, etc.

That seems clear enough.  But I still believe they can't lock down all their specs a year before they set up the production lines and order inventory.  Some components have longer lead times than others.
You can't start writing the software until you know what the hardware platform (i.e CPU) that you are targeting is known.

It happens all the time for embedded systems using cross compilers and simulators.  If they didn't write the basic software/firmware in advance they'd have no way to test prototypes.  Also, it would be inefficient to write the firmware from scratch for each camera, though that would be a good question for the Magic Lantern folks (how similar is the code base between models).  The "Digic" processors are not unique to each model: almost certainly they have some kind of common code base, even if it's just libraries.  They'll add or tweak the code base to accommodate the new attributes and go from there.  Much of the operation can be simulated using synthetic input data (mechanical features being a notable exception.)

No, it doesn't work like that. There will be performance goals, sure, but they need to be delivered upon much earlier. Consider that the camera needs to go through a testing phase to ensure that it won't melt or otherwise self destruct as a result of the owner using it in (say) Death Valley in the middle of a summer's day at maximum fps.

Sure, but they can simulate some aspects of torture testing by adding some internal heat sources to the prototypes.  For the sensor, I'd bet they can do a pretty good job of calculating the thermal characteristics from known engineering data.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2013, 08:32:29 AM »

It is a long way from PnP. DSLRs aren't PCs and that sensor isn't plugging into a USB bus.

I certainly didn't mean literally PnP.  What I meant was that I think it's unlikely that they can lock down all the specs of the individual components a year or more in advance so that each component group (sensor, firmware, AF, physical controls, body) can have exact specs to work toward.  It seems much more likely that they'll tell the component teams "we'd like to have the option for 12fps if we can, but we *really* want 10fps."  That tells the teams working on the hardware and firmware what to shoot for, and what management is willing to spend in development time, component cost, etc.  At some point they'll start converging on the component set that marketing thinks is best suited to the market environment and target price.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 08, 2013, 12:41:18 AM »
I don't think the sensor decision (in particular) is a plug-and-play variable in the design.  I'm an engineer (not a EE to be fair), but wouldn't an 11th hour sensor decision drive a lot of other issues, like processor bandwidth, LiveView control firmware, rate-limiting the shutter to not overheat the processor / fill the buffer too soon, etc.  Also, doesn't the board + sensor have a specialized mount with power and heat sink considerations?

Speculating here, and I'm not an engineer.  I can't imagine how it would be very far from PnP, considering each component likely has to be designed by a separate team.  My guess is that they would give each team a target range for parameters, then tweak them to make it fit together in the the last few months of design.  So if they use the 20Mp sensor they might get 11.3 fps, but if they go with a new 24Mp sensor it would be (20/24) * 11.3 = 9.4 fps.  But I'm just blowing smoke...

If the 70D's IQ is "reasonable" then the 7D2 would do with that sensor if it has the performance of a mini-1DX.  And Canon wouldn't sell it if it were a mini 1DX with the IQ to match.  If the 70D's IQ really is indistinguishable from the 60D's, it would be hard to achieve the quantity sales with the 7D2 they appear to have gotten from the current 7D.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Basic Specs [CR2]
« on: August 07, 2013, 09:51:18 PM »
Well anyway, I'm sticking to my theory. If Nikon rolls out the D400 in the next two months, I think we may see the 70D sensor in the 7D. If Nikon does nothing in the fall and Canon holds off until sometime in 2014, I think the odds of a shiny new sensor go up significantly.

I've always assumed that different components reach readiness at intervals.  The current test-version of the 7D2 may well have the 70D's sensor in it because that's the best/closest thing they've got to the final sensor they will ultimately put in it.  I certainly agree: it would be surprising, even given the history of the 18MP sensor, to have a 7D2 come out with a year-old sensor in late 2014.  But they have to be ready to respond to a D400 if it comes out soon.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2013, 04:40:54 PM »
I suppose a portrait is in the eyes of the artist and viewer.

Agreed.  The reason I poked you about your comment is that the poster had brought out a memory of his childhood, an image that seemed to have inspired his future photography, and then presented it on the most appropriate forum he found here.  I concede that it's in the gray area for a portrait; but it was heartfelt, and not a troll.  And it was kinda funny too.  Your comment struck me as petty, which your posts usually aren't.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2013, 02:30:09 PM »
What kind of cameras did they use in 16th century France?
Dude, you're too smart and thoughtful for this kind of argument: if the skeleton had been painted rather than photographed would that have transformed it into a legitimate portrait in your estimation?  Painted portrait or photographed portrait are irrelevant.  What's important is that it "portrays."

Oh, and from your link: "This has proved that the portrait did indeed show the person as they appeared during life."
I almost addressed this in my original post, but figured you wouldn't go for the obvious fallacy: your original statement was that a portrait should portray a "living subject."  The mummy portraits were painted after the death of the subject, and therefore portray a deceased subject.  If we take your argument regarding the mummy portraits, then a photo of a taxidermied bird could be a portrait because it represents what the bird would have looked like in life.  However, my example only addressed your need for a living subject.  It would have been more legitimate on your part to argue that a bird skeleton is not a bird, but that's a different question.

I like picking nits...   ;)

Can be a fun, social game since we all have nits.  At least that's what I've learned from gorillas and chimps.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2013, 01:31:14 PM »
IMO, 'portrait' implies a living subject.  Not that I'm squeamish about a few bones...not after eight years of teaching gross anatomy to medical students.

I'm willing to grant Atonegro some artistic license on this. 

I guess if we want to nitpick: "ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from French, past participle (used as a noun) of Old French portraire ‘portray’"

Oh, and a bit of Googling: http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/e/egyptian_mummy_portraits.aspx

Yes, it's a portrait.

Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 16, 2013, 07:29:12 PM »
But a better lens on, say, the 5D3, will preform better on the 5D4, you know that for sure. Again, where is the problem exactly?

1. That assumes I'll get a 5D4.  Maybe I'll re-evaluate my entire system if data suggest that another brand is better.  Good data allows me to make the right decision for my needs.

2. Wait!  SOMEONE is WRONG on the Internet!!!   (http://xkcd.com/386/)

It's irrelevant to me at this point since I can't justify the cost of any of these lenses for my amateur needs.  I simply like to see honest, accurate information.  Misleading data (or misleading presentation of data) makes me feel cheated.


Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 28