September 02, 2014, 05:55:17 PM

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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 25, 2014, 07:50:26 PM »
The problem with this is that the "entire package" in  DSLR's are all extremely similar.

A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.

The sensor does.

That may be true for you and, if so, that's a very good reason for you to choose a particular camera based on the sensor.  For others it seems clear that the "entire package," including lenses and accessories, not to mention reliability and ergonomics, does make a very big difference.

The needs for your style of photography may not be representative of the overall market for DSLR systems.

EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 12:37:30 PM »
@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.

A small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.

Small wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales.  The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.

But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews.  Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story.  However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely.  It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration.  You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.

IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies.  I believe Canon can do the same.  Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them.  Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.

One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone.  When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors.  You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.

Technical Support / Re: Memory Cards, formatting and storage
« on: August 23, 2014, 05:48:49 PM »
That said, 30,000 cycles would allow you to fill up the card and format it every day for 82 years... so in practical terms it really does not matter.
The typical format operation on a camera will be a simple re-write of the filesystem structure, and will not write over the entire card.  A good-quality card should do some form of wear-leveling, so formatting is not even a blip on the lifespan of a card.  In theory, you should not need to format at all between uses since every device used to access the card should adhere to the same standards for the file storage structure.  In reality this is mostly true, but I've seen stray reports of lost files when moving cards around.

In short, on good-quality cards formatting in-camera does no harm, and may give some small protection against file lost due to corruption of the filesystem.

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:15:49 AM »
Given four cameras, one with... mFT (4/3) sensor,
...another with a 1.6x sensor,
...another with a 1.5x sensor,
...and another with a FF sensor...


...a photo of a scene from the same position with the same focal point and the same settings (e.g. 25mm f/1.4 1/200 ISO 400) with all cameras,
...the photos cropped to the same framing as the photo from the mFT (4/3) camera,
...and the photos are displayed at the same size...

...then the resulting photos will be Equivalent.  In addition, if...

Here are the problems: as I said above, the comparison is irrelevant and misleading unless it's the same framing.  I will clarify that to say that it must be photographed initially at the same framing, without any cropping.  If you don't start with the same framing you are not comparing the IQ of the sensors, and the comparison is invalid.

There are certain reach-limited circumstances (which jrista has illustrated) where a high-density crop sensor can demonstrate superior IQ for a heavily cropped image.  However, that's not a comparison of the sensors themselves.

You must start with the same frame from on each sensor, or you have no valid data on which perform comparisons.

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 22, 2014, 01:30:27 AM »
I'm no expert on this, so I'll refer you to: and to jrista's various write-ups.

Scenario 2: normalize for the field of view (20.0 degrees)
FF sensor    - 36x24 mm,     3600x2400 (8.60Mp), 100mm lens
APS-C sensor - 22.2x14.8 mm, 2220x1480 (3.29Mp), 61.7mm lens
4/3 sensor   - 17.3x13.3 mm, 1730x1330 (2.30Mp), 48.1mm lens
1/2.3 sensor - 5.76x4.29 mm,  576x429  (0.25Mp), 16.0mm lens

We now have the same field of view from the cameras. Each sensor will have the exact same IQ, the ISO performance and the noise performance will be identical.
In this case, what sensor size buys you is the number of pixels and over the same field of view, the FF camera has far greater resolving power.

To me this is the only case that matters -- the question is irrelevant and misleading unless we're talking about identically-framed shots.  With identically framed shots, a larger sensor will collect more light from the overall field of view (and therefore per-unit-area of the scene), even if the smaller sensor has larger pixels.  With our hypothetical identical technology, a smaller sensor with larger pixels simply cannot collect the same amount of light as a larger sensor.  Compare this to 35mm film vs MF film using identical emulsion.  To what degree that's important depends on the lighting of the scene.  Higher pixel density may give higher resolution (if the lens allows it).

Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 21, 2014, 06:04:58 PM »
Obviously, the FF sensor takes in more light, but it is spread over a wider field of view and the light per pixel is the same.

But the output image (print, projected image, etc) is the same size, so the light gathered by the FF sensor requires less enlargement (attenuation) to achieve that output size, and this negates your argument.

So I believe you're mistaken: with identical technology, the size of the sensor is all that matters for low-light properties.  For ample-light IQ, total MP, AA filter, etc are definitely important for resolution.

I'm sure jrista will jump in here any minute to correct us all.  :-)

Photography Technique / Re: Photographer's Block
« on: August 21, 2014, 12:55:30 AM »
When you can't get inspired for yourself do something for someone else.  I've heard of photographers making free portraits for homeless people.  They schedule with a shelter to set up a mini-studio and printer.  The clients will often send these to family who worry about them to re-assure them that they're getting by OK.

PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot SX520 HS & SX400 HS
« on: August 20, 2014, 07:55:58 PM »
They could have a new high MP unit in the channels NOW. They could have an innovative mirrorless body in the channels NOW.

Why do you think they don't?  Bear in mind that Canon has the best-selling and most-profitable DSLRs right now.  In light of that, what specific reasons might Canon have for their lack of high-MP body?  Have Canon shooters been flocking to Nikon D8xx bodies?  Or to Sony?

You may be happy with these new announcements, and that is your right.
Why do you assume that?  Perhaps we're just realistic.  Nikon has demonstrated that a high-MP body is not as profitable as what Canon is selling now.  Sony has demonstrated the same for mirrorless.  Canon does not want to sell your perfect DSLR just to people like you, they want to sell a popular and profitable body.

It might do you some good to pick up an introductory business textbook.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 13, 2014, 10:01:59 AM »
I'll go with possession is nine-tenths of the law
It turns out that's not true (at least in the U.S.)  You may want to talk to a lawyer about that before you get yourself in trouble.

Of course I also think if someone borrows your camera and takes a picture (for example if you are on vacation and you ask a stranger to take your picture), you own it.
I believe this is a grey area of law, see the recent athlete/fan selfie stories.

As always, do not take legal advice from anyone on the Internet unless you know for a fact the person is a lawyer with expertise in that particular field.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 02:52:46 PM »
Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology.  Now who owns the "selfie" and why?

Without coming to a conclusion on the original subject, only humans are considered people in law as far as I know (in most jurisdictions, right?). So these other cases aren't strictly equivalent. An animal cannot own property, intellectual or otherwise. It cannot sign a contract, nor can it commit a crime. Only humans can.

The question of whether an animal can own property is irrelevant.  Copyright is about what the artist does, not what others do.  Is there any difference in the actions of photographer in the two hypothetical cases?  Answer: no, the photographer's actions are the same.  Therefore, if the photographer's actions would not earn him copyright in the case of isolated tribespeople, the same is true for the macaques.

There is a faulty (I believe) assumption that every photo is entitled to copyright, and the only question is who gets it.  Several here have implied that copyright should be assigned to the human who has the most to do with the photo (by some vague definition).   This, I believe, is false: there is a minimum bar of action that's needed for a photographer to earn copyright over a photo.  To my mind that minimum bar is framing the shot.  Slater did not frame these shots, so he did not earn copyright.  It does not matter who or what might be the subject of the shot, or who else is involved in the shot.  If he didn't do that simple act then he doesn't get copyright.  The question of whether some other person or entity might be entitled to copyright is entirely separate.  It's entirely possible that there is no copyright on these photos at all.

It will be interesting to see if/how this is resolved by an Indonesian court.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:25:01 PM »
In the absence of an actual photographer, copyright should belong to the person who owns the equipment.

It is the same principle as a remote camera. There is no physical human operator directing or framing footage, but the footage still belongs to the person who owned the camera.

It is not rocket science. This guy has been ripped off shamelessly, and people are trying to hide behind what they see as a loophole in the law.

Imagine that, instead of macaques, it's members of an isolated Amazonian tribe who have no experience with technology.  Now who owns the "selfie" and why?

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:42:11 PM »
If it is a tripwire shot, then how can the photographer own the copyright if the composition included material that wasn't there when the photographer framed it?

This goes back to an another post where an instructor tells everyone how to frame a subject in order to take a photograph. In that instance you would be arguing that the instructor owns the copyright because the instructor decided what the composition was which is clearly incorrect.

If a random stroke of lightning automatically sets off the camera to take a picture that happens to include lightning that wasn't there when the image was framed then how can the photographer claim that it was their composition of the lightning that created the image?

This has been addressed elsewhere in the thread, please re-read it. 

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 12:37:28 PM »
Quote from: dilbert link=topic=22140.msg423920#msg423920 date

If an apple falls out of the tree and causes your camera to take a photo that is remarkably good, do you own the copyright? Of course if you lie, chances are nobody will know...
One must appreciate the gravity of the situation......

Yes, and reflect on the astronomical importance of this discussion.

EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Dual Pixel Phase Detect AF While in AI Servo
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:55:32 AM »
I'm expecting something like this.  Canon wants to improve the tracking ability of the dual pixel technology to make it suitable for professional level autofocus.  I expect some solution to be in all future CanonDSLR's.

And maybe take one more step toward pro-level mirrorless.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 12, 2014, 11:22:21 AM »
These questions are clearly addressed earlier in the thread.
I would beg to disagree with respect to the automatic response.

To my mind, a timed or tripwire shot does belong to to the photographer if the framing of the resulting image is what the photographer specifically set up

There are several more as well.  Search for "trip" or "timed."

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 45