Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5D Mark II Announced!!!!!!!!!!!!  (Read 44575 times)
BruceHouston
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 308



« Reply #200 on: September 21, 2008, 12:43:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29322638

Let me quote the pertinent parts:

"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."

> Also I can Not afford $5000 for a D3x or D4, but maybe something between $2500 - $3500...

"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? Are you going to enter the Indianapolis 500 with a Mazda Miata? This is not to say you can't create a 24" print with a D300 (can't say about the D90 yet, see above). But I really have to say that if your aspirations are large, then, unfortunately, your budget is likely to need to reflect that.  Let me phrase that a different way (and I hope Nikon is reading this, because I'm about to be very blunt): if I had to make my living solely off my images right now--and remember this is the context of a landscape photorapher--I almost certainly wouldn't be using Nikon at this moment in time. However, I doubt that I'd be using a Canon or Sony, either. While I've been able to create some mammoth and impressive large images via stitching (156 images is my current record), you simply can't rely upon stitching for every situation."

At the end of the lengthy post he writes:

"Actually, I've long felt that 16-18mp FX is about the right answer (balance) for a DSLR-type camera. That's bigger than a desktop inkjet can print, with reasonable DR and noise. When you start going higher (21mp or now 24mp) it's a little bit like shooting at a higher ISO all the time (e.g., a 24mp DSLR is going to have noise and DR at ISO 100 is going to have noise and DR more akin to a 16mp DSLR shooting at ISO 200. At base ISOs this isn't always a big deal. But consider this: with f/2.8 glass (400mm VR) I was generally shooting at ISO 800 in Denali, especially towards the edges of the day."

- Thom Hogan


I would add that if the AA filter is stripped out of a well executed 18 MP FX DSLR, with proper technique the results will be superior to what the Canon 5DII is likely capable of accomplishing:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457  There has been much discussion lately about noise and resolution and how Canon has accomplished some sort of breakthrough by putting weaker BFA filter on the 5DII, but this comes at a cost:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29379192  What this suggests to me is that even if you took the AA filter out of the 5DII, its resolution is still compromised.
Not meaning to go OT, but rampant profligacy (or unfettered consumerism) is what is leading the United States into a downward spiral of deficits:  government spending and future obligations running into the tens of trillions of dollars, personal debt exceeding savings, and a massive and growing trade deficit.  All those SUVs you allude to that were bought mostly as status symbols (sound familiar to what we are discussing here about megapixels?) have saddled this country with a fleet of gas-hogs that will be polluting the environment and consuming precious oil for years to come.  All this leads the United States to maintain a military larger than perhaps the next ten largest nations in the world, which makes us an empire not unlike Rome and that empire lasted centuries while we may see ours end in mere decades.

Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera.  You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media).  To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.

You know, it won't be terribly long before revolutionary rather than evolutionary technological developments leave BFA DSLRs in the dust.  Then we will start this upgrade cycle all over again, and the economy will continue to churn out newer, better cameras and provide jobs to workers in poorer nations and profits to corporations in richer nations.  I like megapixels and I look forward to the future too, just like you do; but at some point I have to wonder when enough is enough.
Please, that's a Canon engineer speaking, do we really expect him to say the 5D is not as good as the D700?  What is missed (perhaps deliberately) in that statement is that in daylight the two cameras are probably indistinguishable, but the D3 and D700 have been optimized for unnatural lighting, and at that they excel like no other camera currently available:  http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm

Quoting the part of that article pertinent to this discussion:

the D3 simply blows away any DSLR Nikon has previously produced.

The big surprise for me was my dimly lit basketball gym. To date, I've not found any DSLR that I'm 100% comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 in that gym (and you have to in order to get even a modestly usable shutter speed at f/2.Cool. Well, not any more. The D3 does just fine in that gym"

You are more confident than the Canon engineer.  Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.
Then under those circumstances you could just shoot with a 5D and save money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved.  Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make.  Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:

(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or

(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.

In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III.  To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.

Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #201 on: September 21, 2008, 01:49:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved.  Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make.  Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:

(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or

(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.

In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III.  To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.

Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I fully endorse Bruce Houston's comment.
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #202 on: September 21, 2008, 03:08:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved.

Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?

What exactly do you mean by 'efficiency' if you're not referring to selectivity? Are materials currently used for implementing RGB filters of low enough quality that significant improvements can be made to their transmission characteristics  even if they were, for argument's sake,  'optically clear' i.e. not filtering'? Do you know that or are you just speculating?

The problem with reading what manufacturers have to say about their technology is that most of the material widely available is marketing material making it difficult for the non-expert to distinguish between scientific fact and marketing bull.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 03:28:33 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #203 on: September 21, 2008, 03:58:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I just had a look at the 5DIIs full sized jpgs, and since they're jpgs, I'll also wait to for RAWs. However, the full sized jpgs I saw at ISO6400--of the wedding gilr from Canon--were lower noise than my 1DS3 at 1600.

The catch is that the images were exposed perfectly. There are no shadow shot examples. They still looked incredible at 6400. Very nice. That's two stops better ISO noise then the 1DS3, which is about the same as the 5D1.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 05:43:53 AM by dwdallam » Logged

daws
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 267


« Reply #204 on: September 21, 2008, 05:24:24 AM »
ReplyReply

My opinion?

Too much arguing, not enough shooting.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #205 on: September 21, 2008, 05:42:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a tall order, NikosR. I might ask you a similar question as to why it cannot be done.

Clearly, there is always an element of marketing hype in manufacturers descriptions of processes, and I think we can be fairly certain that the precise description of what is really taking place could only be expressed in scientific jargon unintelligible to the average layman.

Suffice it to say that Canon is claiming there is some improvement over the 1Ds3. Just how much will be apparent when the pudding is eaten.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #206 on: September 21, 2008, 06:47:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?

What exactly do you mean by 'efficiency' if you're not referring to selectivity? Are materials currently used for implementing RGB filters of low enough quality that significant improvements can be made to their transmission characteristics  even if they were, for argument's sake,  'optically clear' i.e. not filtering'? Do you know that or are you just speculating?

The RGB color filters in the sensor are optical bandpass filters. By designing the filter material with steeper curves at the high and low cutoff points, it is possible to increase the transmissivity of the filter without necessarily sacrificing color accuracy. This reduces the amount of light within the filter's passband that is absorbed by the filter and wasted.
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #207 on: September 21, 2008, 10:54:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood layman:

Ten years ago none of his was possible (yet now it is); two years ago what the D3 can do was not possible (yet now it is).

Why is it "hard to believe" that Canon has now increased its technology to the point that the 5DMkII can now do what none of these other older model cameras cannot do?

I realize I do not have the technical training that some of you "educated fools" have, but what I have is the basic horse sense to realise that even the most casual look at the big picture will show an astonishing progression in level of performance and capability these companies keep leapfrogging each other with, in each successive model year.

So why do some people act like time has suddenly stopped, and that Canon's latest technology "couldn't possibly be better" than yesterday's technology?

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 10:56:14 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #208 on: September 21, 2008, 11:15:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved. Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make. Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:

(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or

(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.

In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III. To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.

Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From previously cited post here:  [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29378457]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457[/url]

> How do you see that sample, what are in your opinion the possible reasons behind that hazy green?

Poor in-camera JPEG processing, sub-optimal processing in external converters. Not that I expect the different approach to demosaicing will extract resolution one can expect from 21 megapixels, but it can improve the situation dramatically. And of course shooting discipline should take into account that it is a high resolution camera.

> What is your prognosis on the changed Bayer filtering on 5DII based on what you know (seen/heard)?

From the perspective of developing raw converters it poses an interesting and welcome challenge.

IMHO 1DsMKIII is already suffering from weak filtration too much.


Now just to be clear, if I were a Canon user I would be at the head of the line for the 5DII.  On the other hand, I would have realistic expectations and not base those on marketing literature.  The 5DII and A900 are close to what I want in a DSLR, but I would like a camera with optimized resolution and a fewer pixels because just cramming more pixels into the file to make up for weaker filtration and downsizing to get noise levels in prints equivalent to smaller files causes diffraction issues that will impact my images in very tangible ways, and most likely all I would have to show for those extra megapixels is larger files.

To read some of the posts in this thread (and I have stopped reading several people's posts as a result of this thread) one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither, it's most likely a very good camera with High Definition video capability which I personally would prefer not to have (costs more and adds menu items I will never use).
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 11:16:54 AM by Tony Beach » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #209 on: September 21, 2008, 12:11:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
.... one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither ...



Tony, please read my post above ...

Honestly, given the kind of progression that has clearly been shown in the past, from both Canon and Nikon, could you kindly state where in the world you come up with the pure speculation that this new Canon won't be able to deliver the low light performance of the D3/D700?

When Nikon projected its own new low light capability, not even 2 years ago, were you also there on the front lines, poo-pooing this as "marketing hype" from Nikon too, or were you excited to see the new level that Nikon had achieved? We both know where you were on this, as long as the "hype" was coming from Nikon (don't we?)

So aside from the technical jargon, why are you doing little more here than "hoping Canon hasn't advanced beyond Nikon" now? Like I said, even the most casual look at the big picture will show nothing but an astonishing level of progression from these two companies. So I am unclear why you think time has stopped for Canon to where their own progression in low light capability is no longer possible? All you are doing is being negative. There is no basis for your opinions whatsoever.

All your "parroted quote" did was underscore precisely what Canon claims to have done: provide better filtration in this next generation of camera. Why do you believe this is not possible? Quoting the limitations of yesterday's technology is meaningless. Do you have any legitimate knowledge of Canon's brand new technology that causes you to doubt it---or do you in fact know nothing about this new technology?

I do believe, after all is said and done, that you in fact know nothing about Canon's latest sensor or what light or color filtration system they are using. All you really keep doing, essentially, is re-asserting your "hope" that Nikon's D700 low light capabilities have not been eclipsed by the newer Canon model.

This whole train of thought is just a negative spiral downwards, based on nothing but "anti-fanboyism." I would think the prospect of the new 5DMkII should create a positive spiral upwards as to the next move Nikon is going to make. Regardless, I do believe that the forthcoming generations of camera are going to be dramatically-cheaper (and dramatically better) than anything that has been offered to date.

In fact, I think it would be good for everybody to go back and re-read Deep's post on page 10 (post# 193) about the A900: "My overwhelming impression was 'how can a camera this good cost so little?'. For that is truly what is going to be happening, more and more, with all of these cameras. Even Canon's new $1400 50D will be able to take better photographs than the aged 1DMkII, at a fraction of what that older 1D used to cost.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why you, and those like you, keep arguing the negative "impossibilities" ... when all that is around you suggests precisely the opposite ... that many unprecedented advantages and capabilities are here (or are right around the corner) now at only a fraction of the cost.

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 12:17:25 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #210 on: September 21, 2008, 12:19:34 PM »
ReplyReply

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #211 on: September 21, 2008, 03:00:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tony, please read my post above ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too.  Nonetheless, since I posted a reply to someone else here I took a "peek" at your reply since it was obvious you were going to object.  Frankly, I embrace being accused of engaging in "anti-Fanboyism".  No, I'm not going to read your post above, I don't think you have the expertise or even common sense to justify my wasting my time with your posts; although I will reply quickly to a couple of points raised in your reply to my last post.

Quote
Honestly, given the kind of progression that has clearly been shown in the past, from both Canon and Nikon, could you kindly state where in the world you come up with the pure speculation that this new Canon won't be able to deliver the low light performance of the D3/D700?


Read more carefully, I wrote that it is not likely.  Besides that, whatever the advantages new technology offers to smaller photosites, it also offers to larger photosites -- so there is the "all other things being equal..." principle in play here.

Quote
When Nikon projected its own new low light capability, not even 2 years ago, were you also there on the front lines, poo-pooing this as "marketing hype" from Nikon too, or were you excited to see the new level that Nikon had achieved? We both know where you were on this, as long as the "hype" was coming from Nikon (don't we?)


You don't know me, so kindly refrain from trying to claim you know what my opinions about the D3 were when it was announced.  Despite a huge wave of overwhelmingly positive hands-on reviews, I waited to see back then just as I am waiting to see now; the main thing I was excited about back then was that Nikon had released a larger format than DX.  My own evaluations of D3 files demonstrated to me that the D3 produces amazingly robust pixels, and the D300 gives me everything I want in a camera right now (except that I want more megapixels, but not at the expense of diffraction limitations that would make them meaningless for me).

Quote
So aside from the technical jargon, why are you doing little more here than "hoping Canon hasn't advanced beyond Nikon" now?


Stop being so careless, even reckless, in how you characterize what I have written.  My very first post in this thread was critical of anyone caring who has the "best" camera.

Quote
All your "parroted quote" did was underscore precisely what Canon claims to have done: provide better filtration in this next generation of camera.


It is not necessarily "better" color filtration; it is different color filtration (from the 1DsMkIII) with a different objective.  By your standards MFDBs have terrible RGB color filtration.

Quote
Do you have any legitimate knowledge of Canon's brand new technology that causes you to doubt it---or do you in fact know nothing about this new technology?


Do you?  You are basing your enthusiasm on faith, faith in Canon -- that's pretty much the definition of "fanboyism".  I reserve judgment on the 5DII at this time, so far I have not heard of anyone producing files from it that reflect the kind of resolution one expects from the 1DsMkIII; indeed, the early reviews have not been effusive on this point (unlike the responses of many to those early ISO 3200 shots from the D3).

Quote
All you really keep doing, essentially, is re-asserting your "hope" that Nikon's D700 low light capabilities have not been eclipsed by the newer Canon model.

I don't have any such childish hopes, and I defy anyone to show me where I wrote that I even care.  I don't know if Canon made the most out of the 21 million effective photosites they will be using in the 5DII's sensor, I am convinced that Canon could have made a 12-16 MP DSLR with even better DR and high ISO noise characteristics, and I know that the files are going to be nearly twice as large as the files I currently get (and don't tell me I will be able to print twice as large, at best it would be linearly 30% larger).  Personally, I would consider all of that tolerable for the greater resolution the 5DII offers, but there will be times when it makes more sense to use a D700 or a D300 because they have more fps, smaller files, and they are perfectly adequate for the vast majority of user's needs and wants.  Lower megapixel DSLRs are not going to become obsolete in the near future; actually, all of these BFA DSLRs are going to become obsolete at the same time with new 3 color photosite technology arrives in the not-too-distant future, but it would be foolish to hold out for that and pass up whichever currently available DSLR meets your needs.

This is going to be my last reply to you.  I see no value in going around in circles in this thread or responding to the spurious remarks that you make directed towards me or anyone else -- and frankly, your earlier remarks about Thom Hogan in this thread were plainly stupid.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #212 on: September 21, 2008, 03:09:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too.  [snippety snip]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh dear.  
Logged

JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #213 on: September 21, 2008, 04:03:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Tony said,
"You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too.

I could tell I was on this list by this big long response of yours to me, LOL. You probably don't realize how laughable it is to most that you just said this, and then offered a nearly 700-word response to me  






Tony said,
"Nonetheless, since I posted a reply to someone else here I took a "peek" at your reply since it was obvious you were going to object.

Again, I find it laughable that a full-grown man puts another on an "Ignore" list, and then "peeks" to see what he says

Were you one of those sissies who peaked out of the drapes too, while the bigger boys were out playing




Tony said,
"Frankly, I embrace being accused of engaging in "anti-Fanboyism".  No, I'm not going to read your post above, I don't think you have the expertise or even common sense to justify my wasting my time with your posts; although I will reply quickly to a couple of points raised in your reply to my last post.

Tony, I think you misunderstand what I meant by "anti-fanboy": you are an anti-fan of Canon, and you are indeed acting like a little boy (ignoring, "peeking," etc., LOL). You simply lack the self-awareness to realize this.

Same as you lack the awareness to realize the contradiction in saying you're not going to "waste your time" responding to me, and then proceed to write a nearly 700-word response to me.

I agree I do not have the photographic expertise you do, but we disagree as to which of us truly lacks some basic common sense. Again, the phrase "educated fool" comes to mind ...

As regards to this being "your last post," I will take any bets that this will prove to be a lie here also




Tony said,
"Read more carefully, I wrote that it is not likely.  Besides that, whatever the advantages new technology offers to smaller photosites, it also offers to larger photosites -- so there is the "all other things being equal..." principle in play here.

Read more carefully yourself: I called what you wrote pure speculation, and that is all that it is.




Tony said,
"You don't know me, so kindly refrain from trying to claim you know what my opinions about the D3 were when it was announced.  Despite a huge wave of overwhelmingly positive hands-on reviews, I waited to see back then just as I am waiting to see now; the main thing I was excited about back then was that Nikon had released a larger format than DX.  My own evaluations of D3 files demonstrated to me that the D3 produces amazingly robust pixels, and the D300 gives me everything I want in a camera right now (except that I want more megapixels, but not at the expense of diffraction limitations that would make them meaningless for me).

LOL, more Nikon props from the fanboy.

Did you read the post regarding yet another stunning test about the 5DMkII? Are these lies also, or more "paid marketing hype?"




Tony said,
"Stop being so careless, even reckless, in how you characterize what I have written.  My very first post in this thread was critical of anyone caring who has the "best" camera.
It is not necessarily "better" color filtration; it is different color filtration (from the 1DsMkIII) with a different objective.  By your standards MFDBs have terrible RGB color filtration.


I am being no more reckless than you are. In fact, I would say both the trend, and the initial supporting reviews, show that my optimism is more well-founded than your negativism. And speaking of reckless, now you are throwing in opinions on MFDB cameras that I have never stated. Are you a pettifogger too?




Tony said,
"Do you?  You are basing your enthusiasm on faith, faith in Canon -- that's pretty much the definition of "fanboyism".  I reserve judgment on the 5DII at this time, so far I have not heard of anyone producing files from it that reflect the kind of resolution one expects from the 1DsMkIII; indeed, the early reviews have not been effusive on this point (unlike the responses of many to those early ISO 3200 shots from the D3).

You're lying to yourself Tony. You haven't "reserved" any judgments. You have plainly stated that you "don't think" this new camera will be able to offer the lowlight capability of the D3/D700. That is not "reserving judgment" that is making premature judgment to the contrary of what this new camera purports to be able to do. It is also contrary to what the fledgling reports are in fact confirming about the 5DMkII.




Tony said,
"I don't have any such childish hopes, and I defy anyone to show me where I wrote that I even care.

The man who "ignores" and "peeks" is going to speak to me about childishness?  

And then you "defy" me to show you where you wrote of these things? Hell, just above on Post# 212, you wrote, "one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither," That is "caring" Tony, and it's also passing premature judgment.

For whatever reason, you clearly "care very much" that the 5DMkII just might deliver both the best in image quality and the most capability to photograph in low light. Rather than being excited with seemingly wonderful new technology, you are very obviously feeling threatened by the possibility of it. And this is clearly coming from your "Nikon Fanboy" perspective, to anyone with eyes to see.




Tony said,
"I don't know if Canon made the most out of the 21 million effective photosites they will be using in the 5DII's sensor, I am convinced that Canon could have made a 12-16 MP DSLR with even better DR and high ISO noise characteristics, and I know that the files are going to be nearly twice as large as the files I currently get (and don't tell me I will be able to print twice as large, at best it would be linearly 30% larger).  Personally, I would consider all of that tolerable for the greater resolution the 5DII offers, but there will be times when it makes more sense to use a D700 or a D300 because they have more fps, smaller files, and they are perfectly adequate for the vast majority of user's needs and wants.

Once again, your true worry is revealed. No one is suggesting that the D700 and D300 aren't still the good cameras that they are. The suggestion is being made that their prices will soon DROP when this new 5DMkII comes out, not that they still aren't capable of taking excellent photographs or that they don't have their uses. The main thing here, again, should be excitement for the dramatic potential of future cameras, not to worry about yesterday's (or the semi-recent) cemeras ...




Tony said,
"Lower megapixel DSLRs are not going to become obsolete in the near future; actually, all of these BFA DSLRs are going to become obsolete at the same time with new 3 color photosite technology arrives in the not-too-distant future, but it would be foolish to hold out for that and pass up whichever currently available DSLR meets your needs.

Not sure what this has to do with the discussion. No one said they would be "obsolete," but that their prices would go down. Why do you have such a worry for the existence of these cameras, and why do you keep missing the point here? Hell, awhile back I even indicated that the 5DMkII created a condition whereby a person could get these other cameras even cheaper now!




Tony said,
"This is going to be my last reply to you.  I see no value in going around in circles in this thread or responding to the spurious remarks that you make directed towards me or anyone else -- and frankly, your earlier remarks about Thom Hogan in this thread were plainly stupid.


Yeah, sure Tony. Now run along, and go back to your "ignoring and peeking," LOL, but I am sure we'll soon see another response from you quite soon

Truthfully Tony, in all seriousness, what I find "stupid" is your whole way of looking at what should be a very positive benchmark for all camera enthusiasts ...

Jack




.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 04:11:57 PM by JohnKoerner » Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #214 on: September 21, 2008, 04:15:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #215 on: September 21, 2008, 04:33:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Sorry, I just can't help engaging nay-sayers

Anyway, thanks for posting that link though.

Jack




.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #216 on: September 21, 2008, 04:35:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd recommend doing as I did: report them both for abuse. And add to ignore list.

This board is quickly turning into a juvenile pissing contest and noise levels are drowning the signal. Hope moderators take swift and decisive action.
Logged

jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3208



WWW
« Reply #217 on: September 21, 2008, 05:30:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This board is quickly turning into a juvenile pissing contest and noise levels are drowning the signal. Hope moderators take swift and decisive action.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Turning into! This is exactly why this is the first time I've bothered to look at LL forum in 2-3 months. Too many morons who are too lazy to read posts carefully before responding with some innacurate willy waving nonsense spoilt it for me. A shame as they are many sensible  people here with useful information to impart or ideas that are worth reading.
And this is the second thread I've looked and and.....
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8852


« Reply #218 on: September 21, 2008, 05:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 5DII and A900 are close to what I want in a DSLR, but I would like a camera with optimized resolution and a fewer pixels because just cramming more pixels into the file to make up for weaker filtration and downsizing to get noise levels in prints equivalent to smaller files causes diffraction issues that will impact my images in very tangible ways, and most likely all I would have to show for those extra megapixels is larger files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For the benefit of others (Tony has probably used the 'ignore' button and shall therefore remain in ignorance. Ignore and ignorance are from the same root. An ignorant person is basically an ignorer), downsizing an image does not have any serious DoF consequences, outside of extreme pixel-peeping, in relation to another same-format sensor with fewer pixels.

When downsizing a high resolution image, the differences between the parts of the image that are sharply in focus and the parts that are noticeably out of focus, are reduced, since the lower size cannot accomodation the higher resolution that the sensor with the greater pixel count can record, but it can accommodate the lower resolution of the parts that are out of focus.

Given a suitably sharp lens used at its optimum aperture of, say F5.6, a 5D2 image will appear to have a slightly shallower DoF than the same image from a D700 using an equally sharp lens at the same aperture when both images are displayed at the native resolution of the 5D2 , which of course entails uprezzing of the D700 file.

However, when the 5D2 file is downsized to the same pixel count as the D700 file, both images will have equal DoF. In addition, any noise that was apparent in the 5D2 file before downsizing, will be less apparent after downsizing.

Furthermore, the fundamental reason for the need of an AA filter is because the sensor cannot outresolve the lens. As pixel count increases to the point where no further resolution is apparent, even with a sharp prime at its optimum aperture, then an AA filter will serve no purpose. We haven't reached that point yet.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 05:45:09 PM by Ray » Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #219 on: September 21, 2008, 09:57:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I just read that blog. That's incredible for sure. The pictures on the blog from the beta 5D2 are NOT stills. They are grabs from the video option. Is that crazy or what? Basically noise free in low light shadow situations all the way to ISO 3200.
Logged

Pages: « 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad