July 23, 2014, 06:24:52 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 - Famateur

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15
136
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 04, 2013, 01:06:48 AM »
Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:

Buttercup: We'll never survive!
Wesley: Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has...

What are the dangers of the Fire Swamp?  The High DR spurt, but there's a popping sound from the ADC before that, so those are easily avoided.  Lightening pattern noise, but Aglet was clever enough to figure out what that looks like, so we can avoid that, too.  What about the ROUS?  Resolution of Unusual Suckiness?  I don't think that exists.

LOL! Once again, your wit was faster than my reply to my own post (as evidenced by my other post being after this one). Resolution of Unusual Suckiness! Love it!

137
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 04, 2013, 12:52:30 AM »
I hear ya, Unfocused. My opinion (as expressed in another thread) is that Canon chose to concentrate on Live View AF for this generation of sensor. From all the YouTube videos I've seen of the 70D thus far, they pulled it off superbly.

I understand that, to many, Dual Pixel AF appears to be aimed at videographers, and while in practicality, it pretty much is right now, think of what this technology will do for the next mirrorless body!!! That's the first thing I thought of when they announced DPAF. Add a high quality EVF (for those who really want/need it), and you've got a mirrorless body that spanks the competition for auto-focus. I expect a DPAF EOS M will fly off the shelves.

One other thought: we know companies tend to release technology on a scheduled road map. While many are moaning that the DR/noise performance hasn't improved that much in the 70D compared to previous generations, how do we know that they didn't just hold it back in the release pipeline to release it with the 7D?

I know that's optimistic, and I'm perfectly content if they really did focus on just Live View AF, but maybe we should wait to see what the 7DII actually delivers. Just a thought...

Anyway, Canon demonstrated that when it sets out to solve something (like Live View AF), it can succeed. When Canon decides to "solve" the dynamic range and noise "problem", I have no doubt it will be equally successful. I'm excited for Canon.  8)

Of course, not everyone in this forum shares my optimism, particularly after having high DR/noise hopes for the last couple of years and having them dashed. They're like Buttercup, and I'm Wesley as we're fleeing to the Fire Swamp for safety:

Buttercup: We'll never survive!
Wesley: Nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has...

 ;D ;D ;D

138
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's Stock Hit Hard
« on: September 03, 2013, 09:35:07 PM »
Whoops! I also just realized that I replied to a fairly old thread. That's what I get for perusing the message boards themselves instead of just the "hot topic" threads on the home page. D'oh!

More apologies...

139
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's Stock Hit Hard
« on: September 03, 2013, 09:32:30 PM »
WARNING: I just re-read my post before posting it, and man does it sound like a long, boring lecture! My intention is just to contribute something thoughtful to the discussion that hopefully makes sense and perhaps spawns further thoughtful discussion, so I'm posting it anyway.  :P

And with that...

Which is bad news for us since they will be able to get away with 2005 sensors in 2025 and marketing dribbling out things over 20 years (so far it's been more than 10 years and they still haven't finished dribbling out something as simple, basic, and zero cost as a truly functional AutoISO, certainly not for anything less than 1 series).

A friend of my brother used to work for Sandisk. He couldn't divulge details about what was in the release pipeline but said that we'd be simply amazed at the tech they had ready for prime time but wouldn't be released for a couple of years. Like Sandisk, any tech company that wants to survive in the long term will do this. You have to have years of new tech in the pipeline to stay competitive.

From a business perspective, there are a number of sound reasons to use this strategy:

  • Releasing new generations of tech too rapidly can sometimes make people feel like they just wasted their money because something newer and better just came out. If the expensive new gear is suddenly obsolete, you're less likely to shell out next time (or be tempted to keep waiting for another generation, delaying your purchase -- and revenue to the company).
  • Delaying release of new tech can allow more time to recoup R&D costs, improve production processes and ultimately make products cheaper (how often do we comment about how cheap data storage is these days?).
  • Reserving technology for future release helps to even out the peaks and valleys of advancements in technology from new research. It may be a year or two (or more) before a new technology makes it from research to prototype to mass manufacturing. By waiting to release on a more regular "upgrade path", it masks the varying rate of new development and helps keep the revenue more steady.
  • In most cases, a company tries to capture revenue from multiple markets, often stratified by level of income or discretionary spending. By putting all the whistles and bells in one product, lower markets that represent additional revenue would be lost. Hence, inferior but cheaper products are created to satisfy those market segments.
  • One company can't always predict what technology a competitor will release and when. Having a pipeline of technology in waiting allows the company to respond with something when a competitor advances. In general, market leaders (Canon) can wait and follow a road map, while competitors (Nikon) tend to release new tech more rapidly as they fight for market share (the rapid pace can also bring quality control issues along for the ride).

Of course, knowing and understanding all of this doesn't make it any easier to wait for the next generation of tech to be released! I want it "now" just like most other people.  ;D This is where competition is good for the consumer -- it can sometimes nudge a company to release things sooner than planned.

One thing to remember is that the actual tech a competitor releases isn't necessarily the driver for a company to release something in response. From a business perspective, it's that tech's impact on the company's revenue or market share that tends to drive it. If Canon has technology for sensors with higher dynamic range (I don't know if it does or doesn't), then it would make sense to have it scheduled for release along a planned timeline and only bring it to market sooner if/when revenue and/or market share suffer.

I often see comments in this forum about "the marketing department" crippling features on a particular model or "milking this sensor as much as they can", et cetera. I share the same impatience for new tech that motivates such sentiments, but Canon is a business first. It's not a community of do-gooders seeking to produce the pinnacle of photographic technology in a single device. This is also why, in business, a company is referred to as "it" and not "they".

The role of the marketing department is to identify and understand as much as possible about the people to whom they want to sell products. Individual decisions about which features go in and which are withheld may be informed by that marketing research, but product managers who report to vice presidents and executives make those types of decisions -- not the marketing team. It's a pain, but milking a technology for awhile is ultimately better in the long run for impatient consumers like me.

Whew! If you managed to read this far, you have stamina and a healthy attention span -- and my sincere apologies for putting you through such a long post!

140
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Finally did a few paying jobs now what?
« on: September 03, 2013, 08:21:25 PM »
KKCFamilyman, thanks for asking the questions. It allowed me to benefit from the responses without having to have thick skin myself. :)

141
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 09:39:21 PM »
I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it! :D
I tried that, but the fact that I have only 11 stops of DR just sucked the joy right out of it.  ::)

Yeah, I've been feeling a little deflated, too, now that I've learned I can't really take photos of much more than pigeons on a concrete overpass on an overcast day. Maybe there's a local support group that can help...

142
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 07:25:35 PM »
And with that, I am done with this thread, lest I risk becoming a victim of my own signature. Peace out.

LOL...Ditto.

I might even go and...(gasp)...take a photo or two, and...(gasp)...enjoy it! :D

143
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 01:41:25 PM »
No, Pi's been told that someone left a Nikon on the beach and he's looking for it.

Laughed so hard my sides are still hurting! Thanks! ;D

144
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 01:39:43 PM »
Dear CR Moderators:

This thread should be sufficient evidence that discussions about dynamic range and other sensor performance topics will likely devolve into endless and pointless back-and-forth arguing. While I support the idea of people being free to engage in it, perhaps we could find a way of accommodating it with a little more discretion.

Here are some ideas:

1.) On topics like these, we simply lock the thread once the topic has been sufficiently beaten to death (or has been beaten to death in previous threads).

2.) We create a "Bickering" section of the forum in which discussions like this can be initiated and labored to the satisfaction of all participating (or to which threads that take on such characteristics can be moved). Threads from such discussions would be excluded from the website's home page list of recent topics.

I kinda like option 2 best. It makes it clear to those who don't (or do) want to read/engage-in bickering threads that that's what they're getting when they enter. Excluding it from the recent topics on the home page might help avoid "feeding the trolls", as it were, and prevent the unsuspecting from stumbling onto such drivel.

What do you think?

Other ideas?

145
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 01:28:19 PM »






LOL...seriously? That's your conclusion to people who see the futility of this silly argument?

You still haven't responded (unless I lost it in the ever-growing volume of pages to this thread -- or was it the other thread?) to my comment and others' comments acknowledging the DR and noise superiority at certain ISO levels of Sony/Nikon sensors. Does your continual ignoring of the fact that for many (most?) photographers DR and noise at certain ISO levels isn't their highest priority mean your head is in the sand?

Sorry, but displaying an image of beating a dead horse in a thread that continues on, unresolved, for 24 pages is a comment about a topic. Implying that those who disagree with you have their heads in the sand is a personal attack. Is that really where you're going to take this? Then again, maybe I got it all wrong. Maybe you weren't accusing but rather admitting? In which case, I apologize.  ;)

Let it go already...

146
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: September 01, 2013, 01:15:22 PM »
I like to do astrophotography and I have noticed a lack of shadow detail in pictures of black holes :) Perhaps that's where this entire thread should end up.....

LOL...I think you're onto something!

147
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 08:03:29 PM »
LOL...yeah. That pretty much sums it up!

Moderators? I think we're done here...  8)

148
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:38:32 PM »
I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D

Thank goodness for weathersealed bodies and lenses!

LOL...your quick wit is priceless!

149
EOS Bodies / Re: Why you shouldn't be worried about DR
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:37:27 PM »
you do not know what a selective curve is - do you

You do not know when to stop - do you?

We get it. Nikon is better. How many more times need you tell us?

He won't quit until he gets 14 "stops".  ;D

What halfway serious photographer would be content with only 14 stops??? 

Last time I was shooting for fun,  I needed something like 19-20 stops of DR (graffiti in an abandoned basement at EV 1-2; looking out into daylight at EV 13-14).  To get the shadows indoors and the highlights outdoors on my 5d III, I had to take 5 exposures at 2 stop increments.  (For those of you keeping score at home, DxO reports the DR @ 8MP; the DR at full resolution will be lower by almost a stop.  In theory I could have gotten away with taking exposures in an 8 stop range instead of 10 stops.)  Obviously some scenes can not be captured in multiple exposures like this.

To get this extra 8 stops, all we need are bigger sensors; doubling the edge length of a sensor (and keeping the per-pixel tech the same) will give you one stop of DR (at the original resolution), with a free resolution boost in the midtones.  So, I just need Canon to come out with a sensor of (36*2^8) mm format (about 30 ft), and I will have all the DR I needed for that shot (assuming I was content with a resolution of 20-some MP in the shadows).  On the other hand, an Exmor sensor with its built-in 2 stop DR advantage would only need to be (36*2^6)mm (about 7 1/2 ft) -- small enough to mount on your truck. 

Looking at it another way, all Canon would need to do to match Nikon's 2 stop DR advantage would be to make sensors with their current tech that are about 100x150mm.  (And you would get a huge boost in resolution when you are not limited by read noise.)  Or maybe, in the interest of fairness, we could convince Nikon to replace their FX line with a 4x crop sensor so us Canon fanboys won't feel inferior.


You know, sometimes I can't tell where I am on the serious-sarcastic spectrum... time for the weekend.

LOL...touché. You've convinced me -- I'm not going to be satisfied until I have at least a truck-mounted 20-stop camera that fits in the abandoned basement to get that shot and avoid bracketing.

These dynamic range flame wars have been entertaining at times. Thanks for keeping it that way. (I mean that genuinely.)

150
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 30, 2013, 07:29:05 PM »
I can't help but think that this would make an epic food fight if we were all in one room with copious amounts of colorful pudding to fling... ;D

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 15