September 21, 2014, 12:24:59 AM

Author Topic: Canon may be expensive but...  (Read 20940 times)

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2013, 02:29:21 AM »
A wise man realizes that when he finds himself in a place where he is not welcome or doesn't harmoniously fit in, the better part of valor is to excuse himself and leave or to change his behavior. Just saying....

Bit extreme and unfair I think. I for one, like to look at an issue from various perspectives.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2013, 02:29:21 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2013, 02:44:40 AM »

You are quite provocative against me, with a answer like that, if you understand, your answers had been different

JR   point out one thing there Im wrong

Im used to discuss facts at Dpreview, luminous-landscape, DXO, fred miranda and I have  newer   met  a answers like "As usual, you appear to be right whatever Mikael would like us to believe so ... What's the point?"  this shows  only poor knowledge..

There seems to be a big problems here when Im questioning for example Neuro, Jrista answers.

I don't for one second doubt your knowledge of cameras. You come up with interesting and good information usually.

My humble suggestion to you is that you should use the preview button while posting and read carefully what you write so that incorrect / incomplete information is not supplied. My problem with you arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Every time you have landed up in an argument was because you initially posted something which is incomplete / incorrect and when this was pointed out instead of simply agreeing that you missed out on something, you have adopted the "me against them" approach. Constant posts containing phrases  "you don't understand how a sensor works", "poor knowledge", "you have no clue" are in bad taste and are sufficient to get people riled up.

Not having English as your first language doesn't help matters either.

BTW, If you are right, there is no need for you to "prove yourself right" - there are sufficient intelligent people here who will agree with you.

Neuro, Mt Spokane, wickidwombat and the others get a lot of respect here coz they try to help without insulting anyone.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 03:05:55 AM by J.R. »
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2013, 02:49:13 AM »
A wise man realizes that when he finds himself in a place where he is not welcome or doesn't harmoniously fit in, the better part of valor is to excuse himself and leave or to change his behavior. Just saying....

Bit extreme and unfair I think. I for one, like to look at an issue from various perspectives.

I agree. Mikael is knowledgeable and his posts are quite useful. The attitude problems can be sorted out keeping there are cultural issues also - He is, I believe, Swedish and his normal interaction with people may be different from what is considered usual. A word for word translation of a foreign language into English never looks good!
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2013, 06:52:25 AM »

You are quite provocative against me, with a answer like that, if you understand, your answers had been different

JR   point out one thing there Im wrong

Im used to discuss facts at Dpreview, luminous-landscape, DXO, fred miranda and I have  newer   met  a answers like "As usual, you appear to be right whatever Mikael would like us to believe so ... What's the point?"  this shows  only poor knowledge..

There seems to be a big problems here when Im questioning for example Neuro, Jrista answers.

I don't for one second doubt your knowledge of cameras. You come up with interesting and good information usually.

My humble suggestion to you is that you should use the preview button while posting and read carefully what you write so that incorrect / incomplete information is not supplied. My problem with you arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Every time you have landed up in an argument was because you initially posted something which is incomplete / incorrect and when this was pointed out instead of simply agreeing that you missed out on something, you have adopted the "me against them" approach. Constant posts containing phrases  "you don't understand how a sensor works", "poor knowledge", "you have no clue" are in bad taste and are sufficient to get people riled up.

Not having English as your first language doesn't help matters either.

BTW, If you are right, there is no need for you to "prove yourself right" - there are sufficient intelligent people here who will agree with you.

Neuro, Mt Spokane, wickidwombat and the others get a lot of respect here coz they try to help without insulting anyone.

JR WROTE :I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade?  I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people //

Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

CHOSE Lower the iso means go from 800iso to 400 iso =1 STOP  longer exposure time or open up 1 F-stop = let DUBBLE  photons hit the sensor   = decrease the amp gain
Changing iso = TIME/F-STOP   CONTROL THE  numberS of photons TO HIT THE SENSOR


DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND?  IF NOT  FEEL FRI TO ASK

It is very  difficult to discuss with people who do not understand the most basic things
and you can call what ever you want
when I was writing here first time I was insulting by two people who where  wrong - and it is still going on from one  person.

SO again, point out where Im wrong
Mikael, you just proved J.R. right! Please do yourself a favor and re-read his note and then re-read your response. You keep doing this. You know quite a lot but do not take to time to review your writing.

You just stated above that that:
Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

This does not automatically happen in M or B! Do you not agree? I agree that your statement would be true for P, Av, Tv and the Green Rectangle... Your statement is a generalization. However, it cant be true for all the settings on my 5D3.

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2013, 07:24:40 AM »

You are quite provocative against me, with a answer like that, if you understand, your answers had been different

JR   point out one thing there Im wrong

Im used to discuss facts at Dpreview, luminous-landscape, DXO, fred miranda and I have  newer   met  a answers like "As usual, you appear to be right whatever Mikael would like us to believe so ... What's the point?"  this shows  only poor knowledge..

There seems to be a big problems here when Im questioning for example Neuro, Jrista answers.

I don't for one second doubt your knowledge of cameras. You come up with interesting and good information usually.

My humble suggestion to you is that you should use the preview button while posting and read carefully what you write so that incorrect / incomplete information is not supplied. My problem with you arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Every time you have landed up in an argument was because you initially posted something which is incomplete / incorrect and when this was pointed out instead of simply agreeing that you missed out on something, you have adopted the "me against them" approach. Constant posts containing phrases  "you don't understand how a sensor works", "poor knowledge", "you have no clue" are in bad taste and are sufficient to get people riled up.

Not having English as your first language doesn't help matters either.

BTW, If you are right, there is no need for you to "prove yourself right" - there are sufficient intelligent people here who will agree with you.

Neuro, Mt Spokane, wickidwombat and the others get a lot of respect here coz they try to help without insulting anyone.

JR WROTE :I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade?  I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people //

Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

CHOSE Lower the iso means go from 800iso to 400 iso =1 STOP  longer exposure time or open up 1 F-stop = let DUBBLE  photons hit the sensor   = decrease the amp gain
Changing iso = TIME/F-STOP   CONTROL THE  numberS of photons TO HIT THE SENSOR


DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND?  IF NOT  FEEL FRI TO ASK

It is very  difficult to discuss with people who do not understand the most basic things
and you can call what ever you want
when I was writing here first time I was insulting by two people who where  wrong - and it is still going on from one  person.

SO again, point out where Im wrong
Mikael, you just proved J.R. right! Please do yourself a favor and re-read his note and then re-read your response. You keep doing this. You know quite a lot but do not take to time to review your writing.

You just stated above that that:
Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

This does not automatically happen in M or B! Do you not agree? I agree that your statement would be true for P, Av, Tv and the Green Rectangle... Your statement is a generalization. However, it cant be true for all the settings on my 5D3.

+1. But I'd suggest we kill this debate right here or pray that the admins lock this thread ...
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2013, 07:38:21 AM »

You are quite provocative against me, with a answer like that, if you understand, your answers had been different

JR   point out one thing there Im wrong

Im used to discuss facts at Dpreview, luminous-landscape, DXO, fred miranda and I have  newer   met  a answers like "As usual, you appear to be right whatever Mikael would like us to believe so ... What's the point?"  this shows  only poor knowledge..

There seems to be a big problems here when Im questioning for example Neuro, Jrista answers.

I don't for one second doubt your knowledge of cameras. You come up with interesting and good information usually.

My humble suggestion to you is that you should use the preview button while posting and read carefully what you write so that incorrect / incomplete information is not supplied. My problem with you arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Every time you have landed up in an argument was because you initially posted something which is incomplete / incorrect and when this was pointed out instead of simply agreeing that you missed out on something, you have adopted the "me against them" approach. Constant posts containing phrases  "you don't understand how a sensor works", "poor knowledge", "you have no clue" are in bad taste and are sufficient to get people riled up.

Not having English as your first language doesn't help matters either.

BTW, If you are right, there is no need for you to "prove yourself right" - there are sufficient intelligent people here who will agree with you.

Neuro, Mt Spokane, wickidwombat and the others get a lot of respect here coz they try to help without insulting anyone.

JR WROTE :I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade?  I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people //

Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

CHOSE Lower the iso means go from 800iso to 400 iso =1 STOP  longer exposure time or open up 1 F-stop = let DUBBLE  photons hit the sensor   = decrease the amp gain
Changing iso = TIME/F-STOP   CONTROL THE  numberS of photons TO HIT THE SENSOR


DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND?  IF NOT  FEEL FRI TO ASK

It is very  difficult to discuss with people who do not understand the most basic things
and you can call what ever you want
when I was writing here first time I was insulting by two people who where  wrong - and it is still going on from one  person.

SO again, point out where Im wrong
Mikael, you just proved J.R. right! Please do yourself a favor and re-read his note and then re-read your response. You keep doing this. You know quite a lot but do not take to time to review your writing.

You just stated above that that:
Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

This does not automatically happen in M or B! Do you not agree? I agree that your statement would be true for P, Av, Tv and the Green Rectangle... Your statement is a generalization. However, it cant be true for all the settings on my 5D3.

+1. But I'd suggest we kill this debate right here or pray that the admins lock this thread ...
I agree. Motion carried!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14440
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2013, 07:39:51 AM »
Change TO HIGHER iso means shorter time/f-stop compare to  earlier iso,  higher iso, GO  from 400 to 800 = shorter time or more f-stop =halving the hitting photons increase amp gain

CHOSE Lower the iso means go from 800iso to 400 iso =1 STOP  longer exposure time or open up 1 F-stop = let DUBBLE  photons hit the sensor   = decrease the amp gain
Changing iso = TIME/F-STOP   CONTROL THE  numberS of photons TO HIT THE SENSOR


It is very  difficult to discuss with people who do not understand the most basic things

SO again, point out where Im wrong

@J.R. - hopefully I can clarify what Mikael 'Half The Photons' means with the above 'explanation', which I find confusing and incomplete.

Changing ISO does NOT alter the amount of light hitting the sensor.  The part he leaves out (and I think it must be intentional obfuscation at this point) is that his statement applies only in an autoexposure mode (P/Av/Tv).  For example, if in Av mode you switch from ISO 400 to ISO 800, the camera will then adjust the shutter speed one stop faster to give the same exposure, and it's that change in aperture that results in less light hitting the sensor. If you change ISO in M mode, there is no change in the amount of light hitting the sensor. 

EDIT: I see that rpt has already corrected Mikael's incomplete explanation.  @rpt - FYI, the 'explanation' also fails in Av or Tv if at the end of the range, e.g. in Tv mode, switch from ISO 800 to ISO 400, but the lens aperture is already wide open (unless Safety Shift is enabled, then the camera would force a slower shutter speed).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2013, 07:39:51 AM »

sanj

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1502
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2013, 08:16:02 AM »
A wise man realizes that when he finds himself in a place where he is not welcome or doesn't harmoniously fit in, the better part of valor is to excuse himself and leave or to change his behavior. Just saying....

Bit extreme and unfair I think. I for one, like to look at an issue from various perspectives.

Fair enough. I apologize if it was overly harsh or unfair. It was meant to be helpful advice (from my perspective) which I would follow myself.

Addendum: It was not the difference of opinions or disagreement on facts but the manner in which it was repeatedly presented that I find personally distasteful IMHO. :)

:)

BrettS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2013, 08:28:05 AM »
A wise man realizes that when he finds himself in a place where he is not welcome or doesn't harmoniously fit in, the better part of valor is to excuse himself and leave or to change his behavior. Just saying....

+1

Sorry, I'm not with Team Apologists on this one.

There's no excuse for hostile, insulting language on-line from an adult.

BrettS

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2013, 08:43:40 AM »

You are quite provocative against me, with a answer like that, if you understand, your answers had been different

JR   point out one thing there Im wrong

Im used to discuss facts at Dpreview, luminous-landscape, DXO, fred miranda and I have  newer   met  a answers like "As usual, you appear to be right whatever Mikael would like us to believe so ... What's the point?"  this shows  only poor knowledge..

There seems to be a big problems here when Im questioning for example Neuro, Jrista answers.

I don't for one second doubt your knowledge of cameras. You come up with interesting and good information usually.

My humble suggestion to you is that you should use the preview button while posting and read carefully what you write so that incorrect / incomplete information is not supplied. My problem with you arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Every time you have landed up in an argument was because you initially posted something which is incomplete / incorrect and when this was pointed out instead of simply agreeing that you missed out on something, you have adopted the "me against them" approach. Constant posts containing phrases  "you don't understand how a sensor works", "poor knowledge", "you have no clue" are in bad taste and are sufficient to get people riled up.

Not having English as your first language doesn't help matters either.

BTW, If you are right, there is no need for you to "prove yourself right" - there are sufficient intelligent people here who will agree with you.

Neuro, Mt Spokane, wickidwombat and the others get a lot of respect here coz they try to help without insulting anyone.

This. Exactly.

Excellent summary. Thank you J.R.

rpt

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2179
  • Could not wait for 7D2 so I got the 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2013, 09:45:51 AM »

<Snip!>

EDIT: I see that rpt has already corrected Mikael's incomplete explanation.  @rpt - FYI, the 'explanation' also fails in Av or Tv if at the end of the range, e.g. in Tv mode, switch from ISO 800 to ISO 400, but the lens aperture is already wide open (unless Safety Shift is enabled, then the camera would force a slower shutter speed).
:) Yup! You da man!

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14440
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #71 on: February 02, 2013, 01:04:25 PM »
are you for real?  then you have to adjust the time/f-stopt to the  metering of the subject or you are either over expose or under expose

Ahhh...now I finally understand. Mikael's cameras have infallible metering systems.  Snowscapes, fields of yellow flowers, black cats...in all cases, the metered exposure is perfect, so he can always let his camera make exposure decisions for him, so he can use ISO changes to adjust his aperture and shutter speed for him. That must be nice.

Some of you don't have a clue what discussion is about

2. 400 iso the head room is created by two stops , it means halving the hitting light twice to sensor

Indeed. You are stating now that at ISO 400, enabling HTP results in Half The Photons hitting the sensor, making it crystal clear that YOU (still) do not have a clue.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2013, 01:11:58 PM »
Some of you don't have a clue what discussion is about

1.HTP at base iso , 100iso underexpose 1 stop = meteringa after 200iso = shorter time/ higher F-stop = halving the read out electrons = create a head room= fill the head room with a gain 100iso = headroom and now a new curve and rooling in the highlight smother.

2. 400 iso the head room is created by two stops , it means halving the hitting light twice to sensor= exposing after 400iso but iso gain after 200 iso = new curve and rooling in high lights

The problem that you don't seem to understand is that your posts suggest that by "only" changing the ISO by 1 stop the photons hitting the sensor will be cut in half - something that just isn't correct.

And please ... Before writing another hurried reply, see my use of the word "only".

Have a good weekend ... Whatever is left of it!
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #72 on: February 02, 2013, 01:11:58 PM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #73 on: February 02, 2013, 01:33:27 PM »

I thought you had the basic knowledge of time / aperture exposure

I thought the same about you too. Maybe I was wrong

Goodnight!
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1479
    • View Profile
Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2013, 01:35:39 PM »
This is so fun JR and Neuro are so out in the blue so it will be interesting so se how they shall explain them selt out of this situation
 


If this is your idea of fun then i can only assume you spread misinformation on purpose.

BTW I don't know whether to laugh or cry at your above post ???
« Last Edit: February 02, 2013, 01:38:50 PM by J.R. »
5D3, 6D
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 600RT x 4
I have more photo gear than I need. The blame lies squarely with Canonrumors

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2013, 01:35:39 PM »