Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5D Mark II Announced!!!!!!!!!!!!  (Read 47097 times)
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #220 on: September 21, 2008, 10:20:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You got that right. I never thought I'd see the day where Luminous Landscape forums had a thread with more  arrogant, brand defensive content from some (but not all) of the folks participating than anything I've seen in dpreview in a while. Wow. Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.

-m
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #221 on: September 21, 2008, 11:05:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You got that right. I never thought I'd see the day where Luminous Landscape forums had a thread with more  arrogant, brand defensive content from some (but not all) of the folks participating than anything I've seen in dpreview in a while. Wow. Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll start a new one in the digital forum.
Logged

NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #222 on: September 22, 2008, 12:20:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, but does it increase the total amount of light transmitted? In other words, does increasing the efficiency within the target band by more efficiently cutting the unwanted bands mean it necessarily increases the total amount of light transmitted? I don't think so, it depends on the implementation and what you're comparing it with.

An easier way to increase the total amount of light is the relax the filtering (make the curves less steep). Canon stated have increased the transmission characteristics to increase the S/N ratio. What they have actually done we will probably never know. Results remain to be seen. Nevertheless Borg's reservation remain valid until proven wrong or inconsequential.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 12:21:32 AM by NikosR » Logged

Nikos
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #223 on: September 22, 2008, 12:39:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
An easier way to increase the total amount of light is the relax the filtering (make the curves less steep). Canon stated have increased the transmission characteristics to increase the S/N ratio. What they have actually done we will probably never know. Results remain to be seen. Nevertheless Borg's reservation remain valid until proven wrong or inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I would think it would be very difficult to identify what might be contributing to any S/N improvement, and to what degree, should we later determine that the 5D2 does indeed have a lower S/N than both the 1Ds3 and Nikon D700.

There are 3 areas that sound plausible to me, which I believe Canon have mentioned or hinted at. Improved transmissivity of the filters; reduced gap between microlenses (or, did that only or also apply to earlier models?) and improved pre-amplifiers at each photosite.

Unless Canon wish to elborate in more detail about the specific improvements, we're back to 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #224 on: September 22, 2008, 08:03:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are aware that Michael is out of town (Botswana).
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 08:05:19 AM by picnic » Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #225 on: September 22, 2008, 08:51:13 AM »
ReplyReply

All those bells and whistles...  how about giving us more dynamic range?  That would be something.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #226 on: September 22, 2008, 09:11:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All those bells and whistles...  how about giving us more dynamic range?  That would be something.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you want more dynamic range, you need to get a larger sensor, don't you?

Alternatively, you could banish all in-camera noise and simultaneously increase the quantum efficiency of the pixels, but I think that's what Canon have always been trying to do, haven't they?
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #227 on: September 22, 2008, 09:48:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Fujifilm's new technology announcements may give an indication of where camera manufacturers are heading in the effort to simultaneously increase resolution AND dynamic range AND colour response.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp
Logged

Nikos
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #228 on: September 22, 2008, 12:13:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you want more dynamic range, you need to get a larger sensor, don't you?

Alternatively, you could banish all in-camera noise and simultaneously increase the quantum efficiency of the pixels, but I think that's what Canon have always been trying to do, haven't they?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, a larger sensor in a canon SLR frame so we can keep our canon glass and support gear.
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #229 on: September 22, 2008, 12:19:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fujifilm's new technology announcements may give an indication of where camera manufacturers are heading in the effort to simultaneously increase resolution AND dynamic range AND colour response.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A switchable sensor.  Nice article, and promising to see a new direction for competition already in the labs. Thanks for sharing.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #230 on: September 22, 2008, 07:06:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, a larger sensor in a canon SLR frame so we can keep our canon glass and support gear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This would be my preferred option. The only reason why Canon full frame DSLRs cannot use EF-S lenses is a lack of mirror clearance. This obstacle could be removed either by doing without a mirror and using Live View all the time, or redesigning the way the mirror lifts.

The opening in the Canon body is wide enough to allow illumination of a sensor double the area, say 48mmx36mm. Canon's current highest pixel density camera is the 15mp 50D. On a 48x36mm sensor, those pixels would equate to 80mp.

A new set of lenses for the new full frame standard would of course have to be developed, but backward compatibility would ensure that all Canon lenses could be used on the same body, even EF-S lenses which would provide the same quality as the current 50D (or no doubt slightly better with further technological improvements).

This idea is so good, I can't believe Canon are not already working on such a system.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 07:09:11 PM by Ray » Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #231 on: September 23, 2008, 03:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This would be my preferred option. ..

This idea is so good, I can't believe Canon are not already working on such a system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


If not canon, then the competition, and then canon...  Either way, we win, sooner or later.

My only reluctance is that canon, being mass market driven, finds more profits in selling compromise vs. ultra high end gear.  When you figure that for phase one the chip itself is roughly half the price of the camera (it has to be), then unless you have more than $10,000 invested in lens, the offset of saving a few lenses is mute.  Is it enough to consider a complete switch and sell off the old system?

In fact, considering the cost of home scanning tabletop solutions and developing negatives in your kitchen sink, would spending an extra $20K make sense for a low volume shooter?  Therefore canon obviously sells a compromise, as the prosumer can have a 21MP, right off the shelf at Best Buy.

Truth is, I can't justify a $25K chipset, as the 40d and 1ds cover 90% of my needs.  I can easily purchase a film solution from Ebay for less than my current kit for the few images that I need to print at 30", (and continue to enjoy that unpredictable experience).

So I will wait and get my moneys worth from the 40d, and shoot a little film and maybe in a few more product cycles we'll have something worth upgrade to.  More pixels is greats.  But it's the same quality image, only larger.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8939


« Reply #232 on: September 23, 2008, 07:39:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If not canon, then the competition, and then canon...  Either way, we win, sooner or later.

My only reluctance is that canon, being mass market driven, finds more profits in selling compromise vs. ultra high end gear.  [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Tomorrow's compromise is likely to be better than today's state-of-the-art no-compromise. However, in a sense everything's a compromise. DB manufacturers have also compromised in relation to high ISO performance. They've traded off the benefits of the flexibility of the CMOS sensor for the benefits of the greater fill-factor of the CCD.

I'm not convinced that any fundamental image quality improvement of the DB would be worth much when compared to an equivalent CMOS sensor without AA filter. How do you think a P25 would compare to a 5D MkII with its AA filter removed (if that were possible)?  

If you think the P25 might still have the edge, how about comparing equal pixel count and equal size CMOS and CCD sensors, both without AA filter?
Logged
Pete Ferling
Guest
« Reply #233 on: September 24, 2008, 08:17:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Tomorrow's compromise is likely to be better than today's state-of-the-art no-compromise. ... How do you think a P25 would compare to a 5D MkII with its AA filter removed (if that were possible)?   

If you think the P25 might still have the edge, how about comparing equal pixel count and equal size CMOS and CCD sensors, both without AA filter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly why I think it's best to just hold off a few more cycles, as I can see where canon is going. Patience.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 10 11 [12]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad