User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Digital Camera Chat


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Digital Camera Chat
Page 39 of 114 First Previous 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43  Next Last Thread Tools
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-02, 17:23

Yeah the 5D MKIII looks like a modest improvement of what already was a decent camera. Nothing to write home about, but not worth ignoring either.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-03, 03:58

An interesting post on Canon's new flash system.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012...ns/#more-20491
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-03, 08:49

This could be a killer app for the EOS system. I just saw a video where it shows the system in action. It has a ready confirmation beep at the transmitter, so you know when all the flashes have recycled - that's a nice little touch. And, five groups does give extra convenience setting up complex lights. I guess we'll see the Nikon reply in a year or so, but the same inter-system interoperability issues will apply - can't mix in monolights or tap into on venue lighting - unless...

They can make the controllers multi-frequency programmable - then you just mix in your pocket wizards - or tune in to the location lighting. This isn't an issue for folks shooting smaller private events, who carry all their own stuff to weddings and such.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-06, 03:54

Adobe released Lightroom 4 today ($149 USD). Using their usual tricks, Adobe will force anyone wanting to use RAW files from any of the latest cameras (D4, D800/800E, 1DX, 5D MKIII, OM-5) to upgrade to version 4, as version 3 will not support the newest Adobe camera RAW update.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-06, 05:13

Damn, I quite like Camera RAW for quick fixes. I don't really use Lightroom, though maybe I should. Tend to organize in bridge, open in camera RAW, make a couple of quick adjustments, and then into photoshop. But this may not be the best way to work. Someone should tell Adobe that greed isn't a good customer relations strategy, support your f-ing products, they're not cheap to begin with. Of course camera manufacturers could help their own causes by providing better software and/or plug-ins themselves.

In other news, there's a trickle of info about the relative merits of the 5D3 and D800 sensors, but it's hardly worth asking questions about it in DPR's forums.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-03-06, 06:28

Haha, pretty sneaky of Adobe to ship the new version of Lightroom just before the big new cameras! However, the new price is much more palatable than it used to be. Maybe Aperture at 63 euros was biting off too much market share for Adobe's liking.

I was initially trying to follow the debates on the sensor performance of the D800 and 5D Mark III, including a couple of threads on DPReview, but there's just so much noise out there that it's hardly worth the effort of reading it. In a month or two a consensus will emerge (actually, multiple consensuses at different levels of technical knowledge, but there will be a consensus among people who understand sensor performance).

My guess at this point is that the D800 sensor is better than the 5D Mark III's in almost every regard: pixel count, mid-tone signal-to-noise ratio, base-ISO dynamic range (which depends mostly on low-ISO readout noise), high-ISO performance (which depends mostly on high-ISO readout noise and sensor efficiency), and possibly even colour accuracy. However, the differences will probably be slight everywhere except base-ISO dynamic range, and 12+ stops of dynamic range is an advantage few photographers can really use.

I suspect video will be better on the 5D Mark III, at least if Canon doesn't kill it with noise-reduction before saving to that new all-intraframe codec. (Not something I would have worried about, but then I saw the JPEG samples from the 5D Mark III...)

But although the charts will probably show breathtaking sensor performance from the D800, real-world performance might not be better than the 5D Mark III by enough for people outside the seriously tech-savvy to care. It won't be like the D2X versus 1Ds Mark II era, when the Canon was ahead by a mile in every sensor metric. That was mostly due to its sensor-size advantage. The D800 and 5D Mark III share a sensor size.

Still, it's clear now that Canon can no longer count on a decisive sensor superiority to sell EOS. Maybe Canon didn't invest enough in pixel development or fab technology (it's curious that Canon still runs its own fabs while everyone's going fabless). Sony stole a march on everyone with the column-parallel analogue-to-digital conversion technology. They introduced it (in the Nikon D300) when it worked well but not hugely better than high-speed off-sensor ADCs, and they dutifully persevered with it until it was far better than the competition (D7000). The D7000 also showed Sony could crack the pixel-efficiency nut, putting them almost on par with the best Nikon and Canon pixels. Now they've figured out how to upscale a DX sensor to FX with barely any performance tradeoffs (maybe speed, though the speed limit might be imposed by Nikon to sell more D4s), at competitive cost.

In contrast, from the outside it seems that Canon merely tweaked and fiddled for at least five years. I wonder if that's the real reason Tsuneji Uchida stepped down? If he's responsible for the failure to maintain the decisive technology lead in the image-sensor department (and just keeping up might be costing Canon more than buying sensors from Sony!) then you can see why the company might have been unhappy with him. It might be telling that he was replaced by Fujio Mitarai, the guy who ran the ship from 1995 to 2006, an era when Canon was furiously investing in new technology and reaping handsome rewards on the market.

A caveat of sorts to the above: Canon's CMOS sensor in the S100 is amazingly good, seemingly even better than the Sony CCD in the S95 (according to DxOMark). This suggests Canon's pixel tech is still very, very good, but that there are other things holding performance back at the EOS level (e.g. fab tech and/or fab costs, ADC tech, marketing, etc.).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-06, 09:04

The D800 moves 36MP @ 4fps, so 144MP/s. The D4 pushes 16MP @ 11fps, so 176MP/s. If they have the same off chip processing downstream of the sensor, maybe there was another fps or so to be had from the D800. However, I don't know if there are other issues with the sensor just flushing all its data regardless of the speed available downstream? It only gains 2fps when cropped down to DX. A 50% speed boost, which seems commensurate with reading a 1/3 shorter column. Similarly for the 1/5 shorter column of the 1.2x crop. Suggests that the sensor/ADC itself is the bottleneck maybe? Otherwise 8 or 9 fps should have been possible in DX crop.

Maybe we'll know for sure if/when Sony uses the chip in their own camera. They may want to price very aggressively, and/or add in lots of extra features (technology permitting).

Galbraith has a test of the XQD cards, and they're 50% faster writing data to the card in-camera. So, that's going to keep the buffer well clear in the D4, and should be good reason for D4 pros to choose it. For the rest of us, it looks like 1000x CF are the best. And finally, I don't know why we can't have faster SDXC performance- I thought the whole point of these was to have faster read/writes.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-03-06, 09:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
The D800 moves 36MP @ 4fps, so 144MP/s. The D4 pushes 16MP @ 11fps, so 176MP/s. If they have the same off chip processing downstream of the sensor, maybe there was another fps or so to be had from the D800. However, I don't know if there are other issues with the sensor just flushing all its data regardless of the speed available downstream? It only gains 2fps when cropped down to DX. A 50% speed boost, which seems commensurate with reading a 1/3 shorter column. Similarly for the 1/5 shorter column of the 1.2x crop. Suggests that the sensor/ADC itself is the bottleneck maybe? Otherwise 8 or 9 fps should have been possible in DX crop.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Either upscaling the D7000 chip to FX did slow down the readout, or Nikon decided for other reasons to limit the D800 to 4 fps.

The 6 fps in DX is probably a mechanical limit to keep costs down. Not much point in making an expensive 8 or 9 fps mirror box if the camera will only do 4 fps at its full resolution.

I don't think digital processing is a bottleneck today, except possibly for things like moiré reduction in video, in-camera HDR, etc. The new DIGIC in the 5D Mark III is claimed by Canon to be 17 times faster than the one in the 5D Mark II. Since the DIGIC in the 5D Mark II could already cope with about 82 megapixels per second, you'd expect the new DIGIC to handle 1.4 terapixels per second – and probably use less power doing so!

I suspect the real limits are mechanical (note that the 5D Mark III had to get a new mirror-bounding mechanism (see video under SHUTTER > DRIVE SYSTEM) to hit 6 frames per second while providing a steady image to the viewfinder and autofocus module) and analogue electrical (readout, ADC speed).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-06, 10:29

As usual, I may be over-analyzing things. Weird though. 1.5x crop gains two fps, 1.2x gains one, and 5:4 gains nothing. Speed gains seem to correspond to 1/3 column, 1/5 column, full column. But, it could easily be coincidental to other engineering trade offs.

Early reports are that the shutter has been nicely subdued. My D300 was a loud monster of a camera. Mine at least, felt louder than the D700's I also had a chance to use, but a lot of people report the opposite. Either way, they were a touch aggressive sounding. Sometimes, I swear I could feel the shutter kick a little through my hands. If they've cured that, and extended the rated life to 200,000 clicks, there's nothing wrong with that.

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-03-06, 10:50

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
As usual, I may be over-analyzing things. Weird though. 1.5x crop gains two fps, 1.2x gains one, and 5:4 gains nothing. Speed gains seem to correspond to 1/3 column, 1/5 column, full column.
Yeah, but the 1 fps speed gain in 1.2x crop mode is exaggerated, right? Since only 1/6 of the column is being lopped off, not 1/5.

It does still roughly match, I agree. However, the Sony A55 does 10 frames per second with the same sensor as the D7000. If the D800 sensor had been upscaled to FX without any readout speed penalty, then you might hope for a better DX speed than 6 fps – or rather, a better FX speed than 4 fps, if the DX speed is mechanically limited.

Beyond that, I'm out of my depth...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Early reports are that the shutter has been nicely subdued. My D300 was a loud monster of a camera. Mine at least, felt louder than the D700's I also had a chance to use, but a lot of people report the opposite. Either way, they were a touch aggressive sounding. Sometimes, I swear I could feel the shutter kick a little through my hands. If they've cured that, and extended the rated life to 200,000 clicks, there's nothing wrong with that.
I like those pistol-crack shutters. They let the neighbourhood know I'm taking photos, dammit.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-06, 15:15

If you think the D300 and D700 are loud don't go near a D3/D3s! Those things are beasts. If Nikon could put the almost silent shutter of the D7000 in those new pro bodies that would be a dream come true!

Canon's shutters on the other hand sound like a poorly oiled door. Yesterday, while shooting snowy owls, I had this women behind me with a 7D and it sounds liked it was firing a bunch springs all at once. Rather than a nice satisfying click it was like, dzzzz....wip. I'm assuming the latter sound was the aperture blades or mirror snapping back into place. I was glad when she moved on, it was annoying me (and the owls apparently) to be frank.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-07, 11:14

My wife makes similarly worrisome noises when I'm trying to take pictures of hooters.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-07, 18:08

5D3 still life samples are up on IR. They look better than the smeary JPEGs we'd seen until now, but as someone pointed out in another thread, there's something going on with this camera's rated ISO levels. For the same aperture and ISO level, the 5D3 is consistently getting shutter speeds about 2/3rds stop lower than the D4. 1/200 vs 1/320 for example. If the lighting in the test is standardized, then ISO 6400 is actually closer to ISO 4000. This is not unlike the difference between my old D300 and my D7000. The D7000 always gave faster shutter shutter speeds for the same exposure.

There are hints in Canon's press materials that suggest to me that they had to go back, rewrite and reorganize the launch in light of what they might potentially be facing from Sony-Nikon's sensor development. Just little things, but I've been around that sort of stuff long enough to have a sense of a mid-course marketing correction. Little things. The ambassadors got statements out well before samples, and they didn't have much time with the camera. The JPEGs available from early testers, and on Canon's own site, are bad. The PR guys talk about balance of performance, but mention the ability to meet future if necessary. The ISO scale is off and ambitiously close to the flagship, as if a few weeks ago someone decided too - pardon the pun - boost the spec sheet a little. hmmm...

Anyway, here are some examples, and they're exactly consistent right across, all f/8, not good news:

ISO 12800 - Canon 5D3: 1/1600. Nikon D4: 1/2500.
ISO 6400 - Canon 5D3: 1/800. Nikon D4: 1/1250.
ISO 1600 - Canon 5D3: 1/200. Nikon D4: 1/320.

I don't think Nikon (or any camera maker) would purposely under-report their ISO scale.

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2012-03-07 at 18:31.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2012-03-08, 01:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
My wife makes similarly worrisome noises when I'm trying to take pictures of hooters.
It would be nice if you could post some example pictures, just so that we know exactly what you are talking about.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-08, 11:59

I'm afraid that the negative re-inforcement might progress from audible to physical at that point.

2012 is starting to look like a great year for cameras:

Nikon may soon announce a 28mm f/1.8. I sure hope so. It'd make a good street lens, and be equally useful on FX or DX. It's becoming a really good time to consider a move into FX. The cameras are better than they've ever been, and there's a very capable previous gen/used market to serve the entry level. Lenses like the 50 and 85 f/1.8s, and hopefully soon a 28mm, are exactly what's needed to encourage more full-frame adoption. Not at the high end, nobody dropping 5-8K on camera bodies is going to be too worried about budget primes, but folks looking for a good used full frame will certainly want to look at these kinds of lenses over a standard zoom.

.........................................
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-09, 16:47

And now there's a patent registration for a 135 f/1.8 AF-S VR. There's a lens I could sell my 70-200 for...
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-09, 17:25

Wow, a 135mm F1.8 VR, that would be one pricy lens, most likely $2k! I'd be willing to take the 70-200mm off your hands!
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-09, 19:52

I wonder if this would end up being the replacement of the 135DC? The DC lenses are unique and should be kept in the line-up or updated, not replaced with a non-DC variant that can't exactly mimic the look.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-09, 22:00

Agreed. I think there was a patient for the 105mm F2 earlier this year as well.
  quote
Kyros
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
 
2012-03-09, 22:14

I wonder if any of the TCs will work with it without modification. As far as I know, only the 70-200, 300 f4 and the exotics (200 f2 and more expensive) can take them right?

EDIT: I guess it isn't quite the right kind of lens for TCs though. Someone mentioned wishing for a 135 f/1.4 (which would be huge), and it got me thinking.

Unibody, 17 inch, 2.66 GHz, 8 GB, 320 GB + 64GB SSD (No DVD), Snow Leopard
Pismo, 400 MHz, 1 GB, 40 GB, Panther
Graphite Clamshell iBook, 466 MHz, 576 MB, 30 GB, Panther, 1024x768 screen
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-09, 23:20

f/1.8 glass shouldn't be too much bigger than f/2, but with the rest of the modern accoutrements, expect a bigger lens. A 1.4 would certainly be entertaining

Although I think they ought to preserve the defocus control, I really like the idea of a fast 135. And this very useful focal length for both DX and FX does need an update. The recent and proposed 1.8 primes are all fast and equally useful on both FX and DX. If these two designs get released, we'll go from having virtually no AFS mid level primes to having four really nice options 28-50-85-135VR (all f/1.8). Though I hardly expect the last of these to be affordable. The next logical move would be new 20. With the crops available on the new D800, any two of these primes could still put a lot of pixels and framing options on a scene.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-12, 15:31

Photozone just posted reviews for the 50mm F1.8 and 60mm f3.5 macro for Sony e-mount. Neither lens looks to be great optically, and the 60mm is rated very low for poor edge performance.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-14, 11:24

The NEX system just isn't getting great lenses it seems.

I saw some more OM-D samples online and they're very nice. I have to say, I don't think the high ISO images from my D7000 are any better. Maybe they're more flexible for post production pulling and pushing, and almost certainly at base ISO, but for properly exposed pics in average-low light, it looks like you'd get nearly identical prints from the m4/3 cam. Very good.

There's a story with a smidgeon of credibility about a larger m4/3 sensor video camera from Panasonic. It'd be Super 35, which is about the same height as 4/3, but wider, at 23.6mm. People may howl that this would no longer be the m4/3 standard, but that doesn't really matter. Panasonic has a long history of motion picture capture, they share intellectual property for the m4/3 mount, and Super 35 is a motion picture staple. Even if current 4/3 lenses were not ideal - though with some in-camera digital correction more than a few may work well already - a line of motion picture specific lenses wouldn't be for consumers anyway.

And to the camera du jour: the D800? The samples seeping through various interwebforablogs are just incredible. Detail looks about on the level of Leica's S2. And, so far, D800 and D800E differ very little in overall resolving power, at least in lab tests. The AA filter in the D800 must of necessity be very weak to begin with. Curiously for the D800E, it seems to resist moire rather well. In the obligatory D700 comparisons you sometimes see it on the D700 file and not the D800E file - 3X higher spatial frequency must be helpful here.

I was waiting for an extensive D800/E comparison, but I may head down the local shops and put down a deposit this weekend. I think I'd rather not deal with moire reduction on clothing and the like.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-14, 11:28

First unboxing video the D4 came out yesterday (link at Nikon rumors). Looks like a nice kit.

I am very impressed with samples that are coming out of the Olympus E-M5. If I wasn't invested in FX glass I'd be tempted to switch. Of course right now M4/3s is lacking in one area I consider important, telephoto. The best option right now is the 100-300mm from Panasonic, but auto focus isn't considered to be super fast.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-14, 11:49

For the past little while I've found myself recommending m4/3 cameras to various friends and family who just want a good small camera. The bundled deals on various Pen models have been too good to pass up, and while those cameras aren't ideal, they're leagues better than point and shoots. The OM-D rectifies most/all their issues (at a cost). And so, it's my recommendation to anyone who wants to spend a little more for a compact camera, who may want to experiment with additional lenses, but has no intention of buying/owning full-frame 35mm glass.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-14, 12:58

I agree with recommending M4/3s. If my sister ever gets tired of her D40, I'll be pointing her towards a nice little Olympus camera.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-14, 13:58

I don't know what the 4/3 to m4/3 adaptor performance is like, that could put something like the 50-200 SWD option on the table. I always thought the 50-200 could show some really nasty bokeh - almost mirror lens like under the wrong conditions - not all the time, but when it does, wow. Still, it has resolution, speed, and comparative small size, and there are some really great examples of it showing lot of detail on subjects at a distance.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-14, 14:20

For the 50-200 SWD... no point in buying a lens for a dead lens mount (4/3s). The adaptors aren't great from what I've read, at least in terms of focusing speed, and having native mount lenses is always ideal. It would still need a TC to get me more reach than I have now with the 300mm + 1.4x TC.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-03-14, 15:15

You have about 420mm on the D700. Unless you're using DX for extra reach, the 50-200 gives you basically the same reach on 4/3, equivalent to a 100-400 in 35mm terms. But the other stuff is all true. It's a dead mount; it wouldn't matter so much if the adaptor focused faster.

Maybe Olympus will now turn it's attention to designing new teles for m4/3. There's some good stuff there they could adapt from 4/3: 50-200, 90-250, 150, 300, but some of it's costly.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-03-14, 15:21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
You have about 420mm on the D700. Unless you're using DX for extra reach, the 50-200 gives you basically the same reach on 4/3, equivalent to a 100-400 in 35mm terms. But the other stuff is all true. It's a dead mount; it wouldn't matter so much if the adaptor focused faster.
Which is why there is no point in switching. If I could get an equally fast focusing m4/3s lens, that gave greater reach for the same or less weight, I'd be all for it. Maybe, newer m4/3s camera are fast focusers, but suck at subject tracking. Unless there are some major improvements in the next year, I'm either going to save for the Sigma 300mm F2.8 HSM + TC20EIII (600mm F5.6) or the D400 (if it is DX).
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 39 of 114 First Previous 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat rdlomas Apple Products 47 2010-02-04 09:37
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital kieran Purchasing Advice 3 2005-11-18 18:20
New Digital Camera! PowermacG5newbie Genius Bar 2 2005-05-17 23:07


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:33.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova