July 28, 2014, 02:34:44 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 - moreorless

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39
EOS Bodies / Re: New high resolution camera
« on: November 17, 2013, 03:37:26 AM »
With your last paragraph there, you are hypergeneralizing. I posted a very explicit example of two directly comparable lenses. DXO Mark's tests demonstrate that in every respect except T-stop, the Nikon lens performs worse than the Canon lens (for the 600mm f/4 in this case). The D800 has a great sensor with great DR...but the lens tests (which have nothing to do with DR) demonstrate that even the 36mp sensor cannot help Nikon's current 600 f/4 lens design keep up with the Canon lens design.

Admitidly I'v not looked much at the samples from super tele lenses and Canon may well be along way ahead there.

The PROBLEM, here, is that Nikon's lens was "scored" the same as Canon's lens. Given the raw data, the Canon lens should have scored better, without question. That begs the question...why? The only edge the Nikon 600mm had was 0.1 T-stops better transmission. So, DXO is really telling us that the end-all be-all of optical quality is having a tenth of a stop better transmission? Seriously?

Again I can see the worth of measuring the whole package although it obviously means comparing lenses will be harder.

There is clearly something wrong with DXO's scoring. Their lens tests are unabashedly biased, which makes you question every single one of their scores, and to some degree their approach. That's all I am saying. I'm not making any comparison of the general accuracy of DXO vs. DPR or anything like that...just saying that DXO has a severe and blatant bias, and people who use their information need to be aware of that.

Not sure where I stand on the "bias" but to me DxO's "pro Canon" P-Mpix score seems much much dodgier than there "anti Canon" DR scores. The methodology of it is only vaguely hinted at and all we get is a headline score that doesn't even state how its achieved(one focal length? an average?). The results disagree with my own viewing of sample images as well, the D800 has a much larger advantage in resolution than these numbers hint at. I see no such discrepancy with the DR figures where the Nikon cameras clearly do outperform the Canon's in recovering shadows at low ISO.

EOS Bodies / Re: New high resolution camera
« on: November 16, 2013, 09:02:46 PM »
How exactly do DxO mark arrive at that headline lens "score"? an average of lens performance across focal lengths/apertures? wide open? stopped down?
As JRista explained, DxOmark appears to have a Nikon bias on lens tests - BUT, that's because, for whatever their reasoning, part of their lens test also included a measurement that takes into account the signal to noise ratio of the camera body it's being tested on.  Possibly for consideration of final noise quality in printing.
The innately lower noise Nikon bodies thus boost Nikon lens scores..

I can see the logic for testing lens/sensor combinations even it won't give you a measure of lens performance relative to each other across different systems.

What I can't understand is giving one headline score or indeed exactly how this P-Mpix number was arrived at. At least with DxO's sensor marks its clear what the headline scores represent a certain level of performance at a certain setting or settings(even if you disagree with weighing performance in that fashion) and you have the ability to view other settings numbers. Here you just have one number then just an "P-Mpix map" that leaves you guessing based on colour and seems to max out at 12 P-Mpix.

Personally if anything I'm seeing more Canon bias here than I am with the DR figures. I'm no expert at the methodology of these tests but I can see nikon's clear advantage in DR when it comes to real samples. On the other hand I'm not seeing the "equalising factor of superior canon glass" nearly as much, D800 shots clearly look like they capture more detail than 5D3 shots to me.

EOS Bodies / Re: New high resolution camera
« on: November 14, 2013, 04:22:47 AM »
How exactly do DxO mark arrive at that headline lens "score"? an average of lens performance across focal lengths/apertures? wide open? stopped down?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Appeal of Nikon Df
« on: November 11, 2013, 12:06:05 PM »
Every now and then a product is launched that IMHO is totally pointless. This is clearly one.



That seems a pretty pointless comparison to me considering how much of a success the D800 was and why that was the case. You look at the amazon DSLR chart and the Df seems to be doing pretty well to me with 4 different options all in the top 50.

Really what it shows for me is the position we've reached in the camera market, as we get into the realms of diminishing returns for more users it makes sense to go after the niche markets. The question is IMHO whether manifacturers can do this in a way that earns money, you look at the new Sony FF mirrorless and along with a whole raft of new lenses the investment involved must be massive, the same with Fuji's X system. I'm guessing Nikon spent a tiny fraction of that on the Df, really the only thing they needed to spend on was a new body design and some dials, no new sensor, no new AF system and most importantly no new lenses.

Personally I think a small FF mirrorless(rather than a large one with DSLR form factor and mount but no mirror) is always likely to be a limated market simply because of the lens sizes involved(large AF lenses designed for digital as well not small manual film rangefinder lenses) and FF users demands for advanced controls. Sony isn't the only manufacturer with the ability to go after this market, its the only manufacturer desperate enough to given the failiure of its FF DSLR/SLT cameras.

The net is a very poor guide to actual sales here as your dealing with a very small but very vocal group. Just look at the Fuji X system, via net hype they should be earning massive sales yet there still only a tiny bit player in the mirrorless market as a whole, behind even Canon with one rushed body and three lenses.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Japan Teases a White Kiss
« on: November 11, 2013, 11:23:38 AM »
Maybe this is a way of getting rid of all those defective 650D hand grips?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: November 04, 2013, 02:41:35 AM »
Mikon wants to appeal to their base of stawart fans. This will also test those folks who claim they don't care about video and all they want is better photographic tools. Now, let's see how big this group is... I suspect it is VERY small and the DF is going to be another misfire, like the Nikon 1.

I suspect that taking out video is also a way to differentiate this camera from the D4 that looks like it'll have the same season. Nikon lost a lot of D3 sales to people buying D700's instead and I'd guess that's not something they want to repeat.

To me it looks like Nikon is trying to target a lot of niche markets at once...

Those after a smaller FF system
Existing Nikon FF users looking at a smaller second camera
Owners or buyers of old manual lenses
Those after the retro look/control system

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:18:49 AM »
From the latest video it does look like theres some kind of grip, looks similar but larger to the F3's.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 27, 2013, 12:35:19 PM »
+1 on your gig tonight?

I'm guessing that besides that and appealing to former users of older camera's it might also be a response to size saving.

If the camera is going to have a form factor similar to the F3 then that isn't going to leave room for a top plate LCD, you dump that and marked dials are going to give you similar info without having to look at the back screen or the viewfinder.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Rumor: Nikon Digital FM2 - Retro look
« on: October 24, 2013, 10:10:56 AM »
Wonder if Canon going to have something like this? as a fun camera:

The problem I'd say would be that Canon is limated by the mount switch to EOS, Nikon not only has a lot of manual lenses on the second hand market but actually still produces a lot of the AIS lenses.

I'm guessing when/if Canon release an EVF/OVF viewfinder SLR it'll be much more geared towards video.

If Canon released a high resolution, high DR, full frame sensor in a small and light package (similar to the EOS SL1) at an affordable price (Not Leica or 1D price tag), I would be all over it!

But let's face it. They won't. :(

I've preordered the A7R, and I intend to use it with my EF lenses. But I'm also going to buy a couple of native lenses, in order to have the size advantage when I want it. Perhaps two from Zeiss and then the ultra cheap but ultra sharp Samyang 14mm for landscapes.

I will not buy another camera from Canon until they get back on the iron throne of innovation and image quality. That's all I have to say.

Two different issues there really, I can understand buying the Sony for maximum image quality from your existing lenses but I wouldn't rule out Canon(or Nikon) releasing a smaller FF DSLR within the next 18 months, its not like this Sony release was a secret.

while is for sure an interesting development, earth shattering it is not.  The prelude to the demise of the dslr market, it is not.  If mirrorless can get off the ground and run, if people buy into it at this price then we will see interesting developments.  But, markets are weird - and the camera market is especially weird nowadays (screw mirrorless, and FF, and anything that isn't a cell phone - many say the whole upper end of the camera market will crumble because consumers are more and more opting out of having a stand alone camera at all because their cell phone is right there - so the race for quality may be lost for the bulk of the market in favor of ease of use and networking.  Yes, any slr with wifi now can be run with the cell phone, and images can easily be shared via social networks...but that's like 3 steps more than just snapping the shot with the cell phone - which is what the vast majority want. 

With a consumer market increasingly ditching cameras for cell phones, this widens the gap in IQ which I think will make life a little easier for pros.  But, not easy for a mirrorless system like this.  I think Sony may have put the cart before the horse here.  The A7 and A7r do on paper look impressive, but without more glass it will be a hard sell.  And as many pointed out, while its a FF sensor, there are many little known things that suck about it (battery life of up to 300 shots...SD cards...), and the unknown - how does the EVF perform?  I have toyed with a sony mirrorless and an olympus -- the olympus EVF wasn't as bad as the sony, you could tell it was an electronic translation of the world though - while the sony - I really did not like looking through the EVF, maybe it was because it was lower light, but there was a huge delay in what was seen vs what was happening - which says to me ---- mirrorless is a long way from taking over the market!

One thing that's notable to me is that after all the years of hype the A7 really isn't THAT much smaller and lighter than the 6D, a camera that offers more in the way of controls, a top plate LCD and a larger battery. Could it be that because the sensor makes up a larger percentage of a mirrorless body and a good eye level viewfinder is desired by higher end FF users that a lot of the size advantage of mirrorless is removed?

Lens balance with something like a 24-70mm F/2.8 is likely to be an issue but personally I get the impression that a lot of Sony's announced lens lineup has rather modest specs not because there need to balance the system but because there needed to play up size difference.

It seems to me that there might still be potential for a FF DSLR smaller than the 6D as well with features more inline with the A7.

[...] DSLRs work. They're tried equipment with a good and stable track-record. [...]
So were horse and carriage ;)

More like the difference between a car and a motorbike.

The big misperception a lot of people seem to have for me is that mirrorless at some point replacing DSLR's when the latter offer no viewfinder/AF/battery advantage means that the kind of mirrorless systems we currently see will dominate.

I'd argue that todays mirrorless market is really the story of manufacturers who lost out on the DSLR market looking to chase the previously underserviced compact high quality market. This market didn't just appear out of nowhere, you had systems like the Contax G offering something similar pre digital. These camera's didn't kill off the market for larger FF bodies though which offered balance with larger lenses and a lot of space for controls.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II Talk [CR1]
« on: October 10, 2013, 03:19:02 AM »
What could you add to the 70D to make it more video oriented?

Hybrid EVF/OVF viewfinder?

If it can be achieved I think this could be the best move, the new 7D would seem like the perfect camera to introduce it on as it looks like it might struggle to differentiate itself otherwise.

Not commenting directly on this article, but it's a sad fact that as long as money is involved, people will fake wildlife photos.  Whether it's shooting in zoos, using animal models, roadkills, reeling in a dead mouse to attract owls, etc. it will be done.  If your livelihood depends on it, you really can't blame people for doing it.  I just wish people would label it as such, as the North America Nature Photography Association (NANPA) advocates: http://nanpa.org/positions_overview.php.

For me, wildlife photography is all about the challenge of finding wild animals, which is often about luck, and the skill of getting the shot when the opportunity presents itself.  If it were easy, I don't think I would enjoy it.  Then again, my income doesn't depend on getting these shots.

Bare in mind that the nature programs involved generally involve the best wildlife video footage the world has ever seen.

For Americans the Daily Mail is basically Fox News in print form and is opposed to the BBC as an independent public broadcaster. The grandfather of the current owner was a fascist sympathiser pre WW2 yet he ran a highly dishoniest story on the current center left leaders dead father "hating britan".

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 39