July 30, 2014, 08:13:53 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 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 39
EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: December 04, 2011, 12:27:21 AM »
That seems to suggest Native > Downrezed to me, the NEX 7 is clearly inferior at ISO 800 and above.
Why would it suggest that?  As the article states, when you downsample (in this case, I think you would call it "normalizing") a larger image it tends to help average out noise.  I think it's just the case that the the higher MP camera came with a much larger tradeoff in the amount of noise in the signal, evidenced by the failure of downsampling to even it out.  Some evidence for the "high MP cameras are too noisy" crowd, maybe.

One example isnt everything I agree but its one of the clearest I'v seen and thats with the NEX 7 sensor being 18 months newer than the NEX 5. You could argue its a case of Sony pushing too far too fast but then again 36-40 MP on FF would be pushing along way on from 21-24 we have now aswell.

EOS Bodies / Re: An approach towards Medium Format (MF).
« on: December 04, 2011, 12:17:10 AM »
I mentioned this on the LL forum recently and was told that many EF lenses don't actually project a circle, not sure if thats true but if would obviously hinder such a system.

Another way to use the same system might be to accomodate TS-E lenses though, I remember reading an article on a russsian MF system that used the 17mm and 24mm TS-E's with good results while retaining some shift functionally. Those lenses might be rarer than normal EF's but I'd guess there pretty common with seriously Canon FF landscape/architecture users(and likely represent there largest lens investment) who would be an obvious market for MF.

With the mentions of a Mamiya takeover one option that springs to mind for me would be a mirrorless(maybe allowing for Mamiya 7 lenses which seem like a good potential MF match with there sharpness?), thats afterall been a popular format in film MF for awhile and as far as I'm aware nobody has tried it on digital yet. Many of the same advanatges would hold true for digital afterall, lots of space saved by removing a much larger mirrorbox while most users would be using wide/normal lenses that offer more space saving.

EOS Bodies / Re: Noise: shrinking High-MP vs Native Low-MP
« on: December 03, 2011, 12:44:29 PM »
Try this comparison between the NEX-5 and NEX-7 downsampled:


Probably a more meaningful test of a same-generation high resolution sensor downsampled versus a lower resolution sensor.  That's not to criticise you dr croubie, I understand that you were trying to do your best with limited resources available.

That seems to suggest Native > Downrezed to me, the NEX 7 is clearly inferior at ISO 800 and above.

EOS Bodies / Re: This and That
« on: December 03, 2011, 03:55:38 AM »
I agree this is likely the case with the 1D X where say 99.99% of internet posters about it would never buy something that level anyway, but I'm not sure that would be the case for a 5D3 level camera. That relative affordability means random internet posters could be a significant number of possible sales.

Again though even as someone who's one of them to some extent I'm not sure the more vocal internet posters really represent the majority of Canon's amature userbase. For most users I'm guessing that a relatively cheap jack of all trades 5D mk3 with say 6 fps, slightly improved AF and exellent ISO and a less demanding sensor would be more than welcome.

That seems like the main advanatge of the 1DX sensor route to me, the pro's who have the money to spend are forced to spend more of it on longer lenses compaired to ASPH and the amatures who have less to spend get a good all round camera even with just a 24-105 to go with it.

And just to move totally into fantasyland here, what if they made a medium format mirrorless camera? Future scenario: other mirrorless players largely beef up contrast AF such that it can rival phase even with motion tracking and do it smaller than entry level DSLR, which in turn become undesirable. DSLRs only have one retreat: bigger sensors for shallow DoF

Along with an "M9 killer" psuedo rangefinder mirrorless based on primes that actually seems like a good tactic to me. Considering most landscape/studio users are going to be using wide/normal lenses most of the time(and shorter tele when they do) you have the potential for a reasonabley well balanced system thats similar in size/weight to a 5D.

EOS Bodies / Re: A Canon Move into MF: Not in the near future (from NL)
« on: December 02, 2011, 02:58:35 AM »
It's a similar gamble on the resolution side of the house for the traditional 1Ds customer:  "we're giving you 18 very high quality gapless megapixels & a completely redesigned metering system rather than 25+ MP".  They've obviously figured that the few pros that they loose to Nikon (or medium format) will cost them less than maintaining a two-model 1D lineup.

I'd guess that Canon may also view that market as far more uncertain, the high end ISO,FPS, AF market is very much a known quantity where as an ultra high megapixel FF body is much more unknown. Will the pro market look to save money rather than buyign superior MF? is there a strong market for amature users?

They might I spose also believe that on a 5D the 1DX sensor could provide value rather than top end performance. 6 fps without dual processors, less need to buy expensive lenses for both resolution and appature with superior ISO performance.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2011, 01:59:58 AM »
I'm skeptical of an 18 mpix sensor for 5D3.  Why would Canon put its new flagship 1Dx sensor in a lower class body right away?  Doesn't make sense to me.  I'm still thinking 36 Mpix.  Canon will respond to Nikon in this regard.

The 1DX is in rather a different situation to the 1Ds mk3/5D mk2 though, the flagship body this time is being marketed more to a sports/jurno/wildlife crowd with both FPS and AF being big selling points aswell as the sensor

A 5D mk3 with 18 megapixels, and maybe marginal improvements in AF and FPS sold relatively cheaply wouldnt really be much of an alternative to the 1DX for those users. I could see it being very sucessful at the lower end of the market aswell since combined with a 24-105 it would provide a very versatile system without the need for large appatures.

I do have trouble believing that Canon will just give up on megapixels though given that they've released a number of lenses clearly geared to the studio/landscape market(and indeed to coping with the effects of difftraction) in recent years such as the new versions of the 14mm and the TSE's. The problem I'd say might be that trying to please former 1Ds users and FF newbies with a single body is simpley not possible. If Canon were to fudge it then they could end up with a camera too expensive to appeal to the lower end of the market and not high spec enough for the higher end.

The 1DX to me seemed like less an effort to merge the 1D userbase and more an effort to merge the sports, jurno,wildlife userbase onto one body(and get them all buying more expensive lenses). I could see Canon doing the same thing with the landscape/studio market aswell, ditch the dual grip and high end AF from the 1Ds that most of those users don't need and give them a 5D sized body with 1D build, a 100% viewfinder and high megapixel count that they do at a cheaper price, but still one significantly more than tradisional 5D levels.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Information [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2011, 02:50:56 PM »
the pixel size on the 7D sensor is about 4um diamater, on the 645D it's about 7um. Shooting at f/8 we can't resolve any more than 4um. Pixel size on an 18mp Full Frame sensor is about the same as on a 40mp 645D (around 7um).

Unless you plan on shooting at f1.2 all the time there is really no point in putting more pixels on a full frame sensor. If you want to blow your pictures up bigger do more work in post or get a medium format camera. More pixels on the same size sensor is just not going to do it for you.

As I understood it though the changes in sensor size and so appatures used to get the same DOF effectively even out the effects of difftraction. That is for a given megapixel count and field of view diffraction will be at the same level at the same DOF no matter the sensor size. That doesnt of course mean that image quality will be the same given that the smaller FF lens and pixels have to work harder but difftraction isnt as I understand it an issue.

EOS Bodies / Re: Announcements in January & February [CR2]
« on: November 20, 2011, 02:48:02 AM »
I quite agree, not that I think that Canon are going to do anything too radical in 2012, they're far too big and conservative for that! All the camera makers (especially those without 'phone divisions) are desperately trying to figure out "what now" in the lower end of the market with cameraphones reaching the point where there will no longer be a market for seperate compact cameras .

Personally I think the correct response is just to focus more on the higher end market, P&S photography has just been devalued by mobile phones the same way CD's have been devalued by MP3's. The best way to exploit that shift is IMHO to play off the fact that more people taking pics means more will also look to get serious about it.

Nikon's '1' system is an attempt to answer that question, but I'm struggling to see who they're trying to attract with that system because it's so expensive.  To be fair, who am I to question their decision, it's their money and they've obviously done the market research which must suggest that there are a lot of consumers who want a smaller interchangeable lens camera than either DSLRs or any of the previous 'compact system cameras' provided.
[Have we actually agreed an 'official' acronym for these cameras yet?!!!!]

To me the Nikon's while they contain some interesting new tech were really designed(and maybe even priced) more to avoid taking sales from DSLR's than comsumer demand. Sales really don't seem that impressive going from Amazon either considering Nikon's strong fanbase are likely to buy early.

Everyone's now waiting to see Canon's response; I'm not sure what we'll see -it could just be more (possibly smaller) 'Rebels'.  I think that this would be a mistake, not because I believe there is currently a huge market to be tapped for 'CSCs', but because I think that a lot of the technology incorporated in them is the future (for example: EVFs, on-chip phase detect AF); Canon needs to start getting more experience implementing these technologies in stills cameras.  The next Rebel may be the last of the old order as the whole of Canon's lower end line-up is starting to look a little under specified and compared to the competition.

Personally I still think that the largest unexploited mirrorless market at the moment is something along the lines of the rumorued Fuji system, rangefinderish body with a selection of small primes.

If Canon do stick to DSLR's then I'd say looking to make some smaller high end bodies might be a good ideal with the Fuji and NEX7 around.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)
« on: November 19, 2011, 09:10:19 AM »
For landscape photography things will change when resolution go up over 30 megapixels. Today the pixels on the FF sensors are way larger than they need to be. FF has a potential to compete with medium format that APS-C has not, and I think and hope we'll see a move in this direction with coming FF cameras. For high ISO applications already today the best FF sensors clearly outperform the best APS-C. It shall be interesting to see if 1DX is even better than the Nikon D3s.

Yeah that definately the impression I get from the new Sony sensor, perhaps Canon will do better(although they are at a size disadvanatge) but 24 megapixels on a crop really does seem a bridge too far at the moment. If we were talking only high ISO's I could see the point(although neither the NEX 7 nore the A77's featuires seem to be marketed towards landscape/studio users) but even ISO 100 looks like it will lose more detail to noise reduction than the 7D while 200-400 are still going to see alot of use from that market for hand holding.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: APS-C Image Quality (7d vs nex7)
« on: November 18, 2011, 06:56:54 AM »
I agree 100%. I think the 7D is a great camera, lots of people get great results with it, I was very happy with mine, but I sold it last weekend as I felt the IQ at high ISO wasn't suited for what I do. Looking at the test results it looks as if the Sony sensor is pretty damn good,

Looking at the results I'v seen the Sony seems significantly worse than the 7D at high ISO and noticbley worse all the way down to 200.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: The Future of the G Series
« on: November 14, 2011, 01:21:53 AM »
I mean - have you seen the appalling image quality of the A77?

Indeed, if the DPR tests are correct I must say I'm supprized Sony released something that bad. Most of the talk has been about the terrible high ISO performance but to me it looks significantly noiser than the 7D even at ISO 200. Pixel peeping maybe but surely the whole point of 24 MP megapixels is for large printing and heavy cropping.

My guess is that Canon's going to look to follow the X10 with the G series rather than Nikon and Pentax, interchangeble lenses for sensors that small just seem like more trouble than there worth. You look at the X10 and a 28-110 F2-2.8 lens is still able to be very compact compaired to the much worse zoom on the Pentax Q with a smaller sensor, range and appature.

A larger sensor mirrorless with a system of Leica a like(in size if not quality and price) primes just seems like it would kill two birds with one stone. You balance the system much better with smaller lenses and by focusing on primes you also differentiate it from your DSLR business.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D X
« on: November 11, 2011, 07:38:35 PM »
So how would they distance it from the C300? That's going to be the really interesting question. Something that I find rather interesting is that the base ISO of the C300 is ISO 640 (or is it 800?) - not 100. Will the "C" DSLR be designed similarly? Does the "C" DSLR become a C300 without the plethora of outputs? Or...?

Perhaps the video DSLR will be to 4K video what the 5D mk2 was to HD? a cheaper option.

The C300 on the other hand seems to be targetting more towards the upper end of the HD market.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1DX: obviating the need for more expensive lenses?
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:26:57 AM »
Going back to the original subject even if the 1DX reduces the need for larger appatures its going to extent the need for longer focal lenghts so really Canon arent likely to loose out, just the reverse I expect since former 1D users will already likely have fast lenses and might now buy something longer aswell.

From Canon's point of view matching the D3s is probabley more important than providing a 1.3 crop alternative, espeically given there dominance in the sports market.

PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon G13 release date and specs
« on: November 07, 2011, 08:54:01 PM »
I'd guess sometime in the first half of 2012. CR latests post suggests there will be a significant shift in spects, my guess would be a larger sensor ala the X10.

EOS Bodies / Re: Photo gear insurance?
« on: November 07, 2011, 02:33:17 AM »
thanks guys, going to get a quote to add to household insurance tomorrow

As I said I'd check your original policey first, I was looking at adding my camera gear when I discovered it was already covered up to £2000.

The advantage of specific camera insurance seems to be that it can be tailored to cover more situations and that quick on site repairs/replacement is an option.

Pages: 1 ... 30 31 [32] 33 34 ... 39