May 04, 2015, 07:12:58 PM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
61
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM
« Last post by Eldar on Today at 02:31:54 PM »
Still struggling, but I thought I´d add a couple. This first is from my local duck pond. At 11mm it looks like a lake.
62
Software & Accessories / Re: L bracket for 5d?
« Last post by mrzero on Today at 02:31:40 PM »
There is a used RRS bracket for a 5D classic on ebay right now, buy it now or make offer, located in the US. 
63
EOS Bodies / Re: New Flash System in the Works [CR1]
« Last post by Maximilian on Today at 02:31:38 PM »
Canon, bring it on. Do what ever you want.

But don't make it too expensive and give also other flashes rt. Not only to one flagship.

Otherwise you won't see my money for new flashes.
64
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Color balance 6D vs. 60D
« Last post by jrista on Today at 02:30:22 PM »
Both shot at ISO 400 and with auto white balance.  Shutter speed above 1/1000.  I'll do another test with both on "standard" to see if that is the dominant factor.  As far as the original purpose of the test, about half of my shots with the TC on the 6D (manual focus) were sharp. Would definitely prefer a body that could handle f/8 AF with center point if I was going to use the TC on the 5.6 lens very often.


If you shot both on AWB, then that right there can result in differences. Changes in light over even a few seconds can have an impact on color balance with AWB. It is also likely that both cameras actually have different tone curves in the picture styles, even though they may be the same two picture styles. To get a more consistent, comprable result, use a fixed WB setting (say daylight), use the same picture style (personally I use Neutral), take RAW images with each camera, and compare them at the same WB setting in ACR or LR. Then you should be able to get a better idea of what the differences in each camera are when it comes to color.


It should also be noted that color with cameras these days is more a matter of mathematics than sensor technology. The technology does play a role, and it is certainly nice to get better color strait out of the camera, but in the end, color is what you make of it with sliders and curves in post. With a program like LR, you can create user profiles to automatically apply certain settings to every image imported off of any camera. So you can tweak the color of a few images from each of your cameras, generate a user profile when you have the default settings you want for each one, and apply those profiles when you import. Your color would not only be consistent camera-to-camera, but it would also be YOUR color, every time, automatically. ;)
65
Crippling the 60d by cutting afma wasn't necessary at all as there was enough distance to the 7d. But obviously they wanted to make really, really sure.

You throw around the word "obviously" very loosely. Is it possible they disabled user-AFMA to differentiate between one model and another? Maybe. But it's certainly not obvious.

Maybe they don't want the majority of their user base, a vast mob of untrained individuals, intentionally or accidentally impacting camera performance (and likely complaining about it on the internets). Maybe they want more people sending cameras and lenses to service centers for matching adjustments.

One thing is certain: without a leaked document stating the reason some cameras have it and other don't, you're just guessing.
66
EOS Bodies / Re: C Fast memory cards in New EOS bodies ??
« Last post by Mt Spokane Photography on Today at 02:21:29 PM »
CFAST cards are great for video, but I don't need a $700 card for a ordinary DSLR.  Maybe once the price drops.

There are low cost Cfast cards, but they are also crippled with slow write speeds, so they don't make a lot of sense.
67
Industry News / Re: 56mp Sony Sensor on the Way?
« Last post by Aglet on Today at 02:21:21 PM »
I've also been waiting for a 54MP D4x for quite a while...
68
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Mark II Dynamic Range [CR2]
« Last post by exquisitor on Today at 02:20:58 PM »
Thank you, exquisitor. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC  in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)
You are welcome.
High ISO capability is not limited by ADC noise anymore and thus ADC type is not relevant in this case. The noise at high ISO comes from actual read noise from the sensor and from amplification noise. However these two guys are already very good at this point and there is not much room for improvement. So to achieve cleaner high ISO there are two ways:
1). improve quantum efficiency of the sensor to use more light arrived to the pixel;
2). make larger pixel to gather more light.
1Dx has about 50 % quantum efficiency, so there is a room for improvement. The resolution would be IMO in the 20-24 MP range. Overall I think you could expect at least half a stop better high ISO, optimistically even 1 stop. But that is just speculation...
69
I will mirror a comment on the article, why not test all on the Sony body?
70
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS-1D X Mark II Dynamic Range [CR2]
« Last post by jrista on Today at 02:19:47 PM »
Thank you, exquisitor. In reference to improved high ISO IQ what will the improvement be like, on correctly exposed images using on-chip-in-row-ADC  in comparison to the discussed dual ISO concept? Or, what wil be the overall improvement of either of those new concepts over current ADC tech? 1/2, 1, or two stops combined with new Digics and reasonable MP count? I would be absolutely happy with 12800ish ISO 25.600 ;-)


High ISO performance is going to be more dependent upon sensor Q.E. than ADC performance. Because the signal is initially amplified in each pixel, it is stronger coming off the sensor. The ADC will still add noise, but it's a relatively consistent amount of noise, so relative to a strongly amplified signal, it's small. There is also little value in using dual-ISO techniques at high ISO, as you aren't able to make full use of the dynamic range of the sensor in the first place.


As Q.E. on current Canon sensors is already up in the 60% range, it's unlikely we will see a 1-stop improvement in high ISO noise unless larger pixels are used (or something else that increases well capacity). It is primarily at low ISO where a reduction in read noise will increase dynamic range. A dual-ISO approach can certainly improve things, however as your effectively blending two different exposures with different noise characteristics, this can often create artifacts (check MagicLantern images). The best approach is to actually use better technology to prevent noise in the first place. Isolating high-frequency components away from ADC units, using more ADC units so they can operate at lower frequency, reducing trace distance from pixel to ADC, converting to digital at the earliest convenience and using error-corrected data transfer, etc.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10