July 28, 2016, 11:00:20 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10
Post Processing / Re: The mega-pixel chase
« Last post by AcutancePhotography on Today at 08:37:10 AM »
Could be a lot of reasons.  Many photographers either don't use PS or only want to use the basic functions.

"Getting closer and merge" may not work for some shots or some photographers don't want to do it.

The good news is that the photography world is big enough for photographers to do different things differently.

It should not puzzle you that much.  People are different, photographers are people so ergo....  ;D
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to be 30mp? [CR1]
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 07:58:37 AM »
bad idea if canon matched Nikon.
Canon needs to offer something better than Nikon

To update your table..

5Ds                 50MP @5 fps
            D810   36MP @5 fps
5DM4               ? ? ? ?
            D750    24MP @6.5fps
5DM3               22MP @6fps
6DM2               ? ? ? ?
            D610    24MP @6fps
6D                   20MP  @4.5fps
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 5D Mark IV to be 30mp? [CR1]
« Last post by dilbert on Today at 07:52:44 AM »
so the MP war is as silly as in days gone by 8)

Pretty much. Phase One didn't introduce a 100MP MFDB for nothing.

if so, then Canon got away from their statements made at a time the 5DIII came out, which went something like this: "We see, that the customers appreciate a decent MP count, so we're focussing on an allrounder camera as far as the 5D line is concerned." Its barely correct, but they really seemed to be puttin off the MP race which I was very happy about.

That is from when Canon was in front on the MP count...

So, an excellent 24 MP allrounder cam for events would do... But Dylan got it right back in his day: The times they are-a-changing...;-)

Everything old is new again :)
Have things changed in sensor design dramatically recently ? If not then i presume that squeezing millions more pixels onto the same size sensor is a bad thing as far as light pick and pixel pitch with there being more gaps between the many more pixels. I want to see better high ISO performance not worse in a new camera personally and am not bothered by 4k video. Dual CF or faster SD is a must as is wifi, but pixels happy at 20-24 range. Think maybe they should bring out a 5DW for us wedding togs haha - we tend to recommend professional videographers rather than buying cameras with 4K - we have enough to do ;)

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by lion rock on Today at 07:36:51 AM »
Lenses / Re: Review - Do You Need or Want 50mp? Canon EOS 5DS R
« Last post by AlanF on Today at 07:26:56 AM »
I was going to mention the point about diffraction. Put simply, the size of the ring of blurring caused by diffraction (the size of the Airy disk, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk) is absolutely identical for the 5Ds, 5DIII, 6D etc for when the same lens is attached at the same f-number. Diffraction is never any worse on a 5Ds than on a FF with less pixels but the 5Ds starts to lose the advantage of having more pixels as the f-number increases.
Lenses / Re: Review - Do You Need or Want 50mp? Canon EOS 5DS R
« Last post by Sator on Today at 07:16:53 AM »
Thank you Dustin for the thoughtful and well written review.

Oddly enough I just sold my 6D after owning the 5DsR since release. This is a reflection of what other photography gear I own, rather than a negative assessment of the 6D.

I have personally found that the 6D produced images that are a bit too soft, and I find the white balance a touch too warm. The 5DsR produces crisper, cleaner, and more contrasty images—as long as you are shooting in near ideal light. It's a studio camera after all...the "s" in 5Ds stands for studio! That is how I use mine, although as long as you don't push the ISO, it can be used out in the field too.

The reason I sold my 6D was that the latest Fuji X-Pro2, and even more so the X-T2, is starting to be able to replace it as a field camera (dual card slots, faster frame rates, increasingly better able to shoot action and in lowish light). The Fuji X-Pro2 has a white balance similar to the 5DsR. I could imagine that if you were used to the 6D that you might think these newer models from Canon and Fuji have a cooler white balance, but I suspect that these newer models have more accurate white balance compared to the 6D, which is a touch too warm. I notice this with skin tone, where both Canon and Fuji together arguably represent the industry standards when it comes to getting good skin tone, with their newer models being even better than the older ones.

The next issue is that of the advantage of high resolution sensors. It is not limited to just oversized printing at all. I tend to agree with Tony Northrup:


The last issue is that of the oft mentioned issue of diffraction. I wonder if you have access to the mathematical calculations that determine the relationship between visible diffraction and sensor resolution. I have never seen this, and suspect that nobody can produce it simply because much of this is based on an urban myth:



Diffraction in physics is caused by light passing through a slit or hole. This comes from Canon:

Light comes from the left, passes through the slit (indicated by the blue line), causing light to be diffracted (on the right).

The amount of diffraction cannot be altered by changing the size of the pixels on the sensor side. The width of the slit the light passes through is the only parameter which can influence the degree of diffraction. Reducing the pixel size on the sensor therefore cannot alter the amount of diffraction that occurs. For a slit of a given size, irrespective of the sensor resolution, the amount of diffraction as it passes through the slit is always the same. Higher resolutions/smaller pixel size may make the diffraction more visible, but it cannot alter the amount of light diffraction. So the idea that higher sensor resolution makes diffraction set in at ever wider apertures makes little sense.

Thus the idea that a future 120MP Canon full frame sensor on the FE mount might cause diffraction to become a limiting factor hardly makes good optical sense. That is why I think we need to see the actual mathematical demonstration that underpins these claims about the relationship between visible diffraction (sufficient to cause IQ degradation) and pixel size. Until I actually see this, I am going to call the commonly repeated stuff about diffraction limiting the usefulness of high resolution sensors an urban myth until proven otherwise. I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Landscape / Re: Flowers and other Flora
« Last post by npdien on Today at 07:11:35 AM »
Post Processing / The mega-pixel chase
« Last post by chauncey on Today at 07:09:48 AM »
Several caveats up front...I want a lot of megapixels in my images should I desire to print large or to downsize for superior image IQ,
am also rather adept at using PS photo-merge (along with other tools within), additionally, my well used, old 1Ds3, attached to a
180 macro or a 300 f/2.8 has served me quite well over the years.

Granted that the learning curve in PS borders on the obscene, it still puzzles me why more photographers fail to utilize its advantages.
Want more MP, merely get closer and merge your images.  I don't see a downsize...assuming PS is not beyond your skill set.
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Patent: Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 VC
« Last post by andrei1989 on Today at 06:38:37 AM »

Anyway Tamron will probably still be asking 70% of the price of the Canon 100-400 II. So forget it!

if it were like the canon f/4-5.6 it would be 70% the price of the canon, but if the lens will become reality and it will be like in the patent, f/4.5-6.3, then i expect it will be around 50% the price of the canon.

but then it will directly compete with the 150-600...unless it will be significantly smaller and lighter..
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 ... 10