Andrew53
Lives in
Bangkok, Thailand
Works as a
Oil Biz
Joined on
Dec 4, 2011
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |
| .....the ROYAL LOTUS 2017/08/25-NEW YORK..... by Chiwat from Wild flowers | Montréal Dépaneur Out of Business DP by MarioSS from Your City - Out of Business | Wish You Were Here by Dutch Newchurch from Street musician playing | Flight of a Puffin by cjf2 from Flight |
Beginner's GuidesGetting Started
In-depth testingLatest Camera Reviews
Beyond the studio testsFeature Articles and Videos
real world performanceField Test Videos
see how we seeSample Galleries
In-depth ReviewFujifilm X100F
Show CoverageHits and Misses from CP+ 2017
Throwback ThursdayClassic Cameras from Days Past
2468FeatureWhat is equivalence?
What's that Noise?Shedding some light on the sources of noise
iae aa eia: Any ultra wide angle lens with an aperture above 2.8 can be a waste of money. I say that because the bokeh you get with that aperture in such a focal length is narrow and not that interesting or useful (except in macro shots). But, in a medium format, it would make much more of a difference, since its equivalence would produce the bokeh of a 21mm, and thus, a more useful (or impressive) bokeh for shots other than macro. I saw that they have an ƒ/4 version, but I don't know how if it is as good or how better it is. It has a 1:1 macro feature and shift capabilities.
Hmmm, weddings? Unique shots during the reception? No need to worry about high ISO or focus? Just wait, I think I talked myself into buying one.
ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.
This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)
6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.
If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.
Your right some people are clueless. I was complaining about pulling up the shadows too much.
ThomasH_always: This is getting ridiculous: Every technical solution has levels of compromise, and in this case we are looking at, what: corrective settings of +3EV, +4EV? When in gods name do you need it? Only when you deal with a badly failed photograph, which has a great personal value to you (memories, special situation). Technical perfection irrelevant, content priceless.
This craze resembles indeed the Hi-Fi madness in the 80thies: We red brochures and made decisions based on 0.012% versus 0.013% noise ratio or signal distortion. We do the same with the cameras these days. (Thanks Thom Hogan for reminding us about that in his great article "Stop complaining".)
6D II will be a success, despite these extreme corner cases, in which someone else has a better sensor. I cannot remember having have done a +3EV correction even once, and I just turned in "45 years of taking pictures", since the Nikkormat's ruled the planet.
If your pictures need +3EV, +5EV correction, rethink your technique.
Just because you can bring up the shadows, doesn't mean you should. Even the example photograph to show noise in the shadows, looks like poorly done HDR.
I'm not being an apologist for Canon's decision to place apparently old sensor technology in a new camera, but my in my experience, the emphasis on DR is misplaced and exaggerated. Good grief, 90% of the most famous photographs ever taken only used a DR of about 7EV.
bogdescu: ...came back here because I forgot to ask about one weird scenario.
Let's say someone gives you a file on an USB key.
I know it's a crazy scenario, but it might happen.
What do you do? Where do you stick an USB stick, Schiller?
<edit: wow, it must be Alzheimer's, I already asked this rhetorical question once in this very debate>
You put it in your MS Surface Pro. Dahhh.
desaint: Oh my freaking g#d...a lot of people complaining here..10 dollar a month three beers less and you are there.
I'ts a ver expensive product to make,you pay thousands of dollars on camera gear but you don't want to pay for your software??
Normal you have to buy it once in the three years and now you pay monthly,i think at the end it's about the same...
And for the illegal downloaders there is enough other software builders you can
use for"free"and then can complain about it:)
It isn't $10 a month, it's my photos being held hostage. The edits and database are part of my work and CC makes them hostage to the marketing whims of Adobe. They change the deal and all of a sudden 10 years of my work is useless.
ImagesToo: Quite well explained except for one major mistake. You talk about sensor size as being important. It is only part of the story. The real issue is pixel size. A FF sensor with 4 times as many pixels as a 4/3 sensor is identical in noise performance as each pixel is now only 1/4 the area so it captures the same amount of light.
The other thing which has been omitted is that because of shot noise a raw file only contains about 250 levels of brightness for a pixel which is what a jpg file has. Virtually all the extra information in a raw file is nothing more than digitised noise. You can do the calculations quite easily remembering that noise is the square root of the number of photons.
Shot noise is the amount of light per unit area. This applies to an individual pixel and an entire picture. For the same exposure (i.e. the same intensity and same time) the noise will be the same for a given area. While a single pixel may have more noise (because it is smaller) the overall signal-to-noise will depend on the area. So larger sensors produce lower noise because they collect more light - for the same exposure.
But...
For an equivalent DOF and equivalent focal length and the same shutter speed there is (in theory) no advantage to a larger sensor.
A m43 25mm using ISO 1600 produces the same (shot) noise as a FF 50mm f2.0 at ISO6400 using the same shutter speed. (in theory) and at the same time should produce the same field of view and the same DOF.
There is no free lunch however, because building f1.0 lenses is difficult, heavier and more expensive. Zoom lenses even more difficult and heavy - and expensive.
My view is that Canon took mirror seriously right from the start. The original EOS-M has outstanding build quality, the best touch screen in the business and very well made high quality lenses. You do not build a camera of that high of quality if you are not taking it seriously. Even the strap attachments, although non-standard, are very well thought out and an improvement over standard camera offerings.
Canon mis-read the market and didn't supply a viewfinder and Canon failed completely by letting the sub-standard AF slip though the testing cycle. Aside from that, the original EOS-M is just about all a mirror-less camera should be. The lack of lenses is only because of a lack of interest on the part of the consumer.
Joo Prates: The numbers are cold, but show the facts.
Let's go to DPR ratings. In interchangeable Lens Cameras, ordered by rating, in Gold Awards, we find in the 10 first best cameras:
- 1 Canon Camera (EOS-1D Mark IV- 89% / Feb 2010) ,
- 4 Nikon cameras (D3S - 89% / Feb 2010; D610 - 87% / Mar 2014; D600 - 87% / Nov 2012; D7100 85% / Apr 2013)
The new Canon 70D - 83% / Oct 2013 in 13 position Gold Award
The new 7D MarkII - 84% / Dec 2014 Silver Award
So, after 5 years...it's the best Canon achieves with their 7D Mark II? the same sensor...low DR...no Wi-fi? are you joking with us?
For instance in lens...how is it possible that Sigma makes a 50 mm 1,4 Art lens, for 950USD (price droping), and the top Canon L 50mm 1,2 that sells for 1600USD is worse in all levels, compared to the Sigma?
I've been a canonist all my life, but I'm disappointed with Canon Cameras and lenses, and I'm considering making the big move - changing to Nikon.
I have the Sigma 50mm Art, I have the Canon 50mm f1.2. My preference is the Canon. Not everything is about sharpness.
smafdy: I believe it was the sculptor, Rodin, who said (not verbatim), that if a work of art came out of his studio, created at the hands of a subordinate, it was still authored by him.
I would not be happy buying a "Rodin" and then finding out it was done by a subordinate. This statement sounds more like a pitch to increase sales volume.
QED
Canon 1Dx for comparison? Maybe it is too new?
Someone finds a way to migrate my LR work to different software and I'm gone.
jimkahnw: Don't criticize Adobe for creating a way to protect its investment. They employ an army of coders to build Photoshop and at one time PS was the most pirated software on the internet. Software as complex and powerful as PS is not free, and Adobe is entitled to make a profit, especially if it supplying tools that others use to make a profit. Hence the Creative Cloud business model.
As a professional user of Photoshop, I have always purchased the upgrades as they were released. I also use some of the other tools available from Creative Cloud, so the cost of the subscription is really a bargain, especially when compared with the prior prices of boxed versions. It's the cost of doing business.
Those users who would select less capable software, mostly out of spite, are giving up a competitive advantage.
It isn't the army of coders that annoys me. its the army of accountants, lawyers and MBAs.
Zoom71: Softness everywhere... Typical Canon agressive noise reduction even at base ISO.
D600:
I AM BROKEN
xeriwthe: i purchased an upgrade to lightroom and subsequently received a letter from adobe apologizing for losing my data and offering free 'ID protection service' for limited time only!
gah.. why did they automatically store my credit card info? why why why i didn't subscribe to anything
Turn a negative into a positive (for Adobe) - the genius of the corporate socio-paths.
MBA managers will be the death of civilization.
Talked to a camera dealer. Stuck with old D600 stock with the same sticker price as the new D610. Nikon didn't even give them a head up. He is not happy as he will take a loss on the old stock.
guyfawkes: Fraud is a crime, and the perpetrators need to be punished.
The Japanese legal system simply gave them a rap over the knuckles. Justice for US, UK and other nation's citizens needs to be seen to be done. Think of those whose pension funds were hit, or whose savings were affected, and the impact on long serving employees' pensions.
So peevee1 and others with a similar twisted sense of duty, please take note.
YEH! All those Wall Street types rotting in jail after plunging the world into financial chaos with shady mortgage deals. Methinks Japan's record, as miserable as it is, is better than either the US or the UK.
This photogrpah did not represent a real situation. It was placed and captioned such that the viewer would have thought it represented a real situation. It does not represent reality any more than an action movie represents realisty. It is a work of fiction.
Journalism is suppose to make the world a better place. This photograph, the story and the award destroy trust between the public and the journalism profession. This is a dis-service to the community. This does not make the world a better place.
I am appalled.
MichaelKJ: The Oly scandal was of some interest while things were unfolding, but now it is yesterday's news. Woodford has his money and will soon be forgotten. I can't imagine why anyone would want to read his book and the comment in the article about a possible movie is nothing more than PR.
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.
Corporate governance is obsure or completely unknown to the majority of people. A review of how these monumental mistakes or possibly massive fraud occured will be very valuable for anyone who with a stake in the corporate world - which is just about everyone since at a minium corporations have a significant impact on our commuities.
tominhk: re Leica glass... Is it not possible for Canon or nikon etc to make the same? Maybe an L plus lens? And match with a body with no aa filter?
I have the 50mm Summilux and the 50mm f1.2L. I like the L images more. Although the Lux is sharper across the frame, bokeh is nicer with the Canon. Both are excellent lenses.