Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
Thread started 26 Oct 2018 (Friday) 06:34
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

"The DSLR is dead" EOS R and cell phone cameras taking over - so they say

 
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,937 posts
Gallery: 1337 photos
Likes: 7808
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
     
Feb 10, 2019 11:24 |  #106

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808336 (external link)
I wrote that the lens was still actually 8mm and f/2.8, and became like something else, as far as the image is concerned when you cropped. IOW, a 2x digital zoom will give the same image as a sensor of the same size with 1/4 the pixels, double the f-number (double the diffraction blur, double the analog DOF, and 1/4 the photons), and double the focal length.

I disagree with part of that- any diffraction is still the same. The number of photons hitting the pixels in a digital zoom is still the same because the pixels don't change size. Using a digital zoom doesn't mean you need four times the exposure time to saturate the pixels in bright light. The f-number is still the same.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808336 (external link)
This "equivalence" is just a sometimes-convenient model for comparing systems. It does not mean that it isn't also just a 2x crop from a 8/2.8 lens; that's another model. You can't mix and match parameters between models. The "equivalence" model makes it vividly clear how much digital zoom erodes maximum image quality potential, for those who can't appreciate the losses of cropping directly, such as those stuck on "pixel level views" who see no losses in cropping, compared to using the entire frame for the same composition, with the same optics.

No models needed. It doesn't matter where I perform the crop, the image was taken with a certain exposure and aperture.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808336 (external link)
That's what I meant by "more pixels on subject".

Ok, I understand that.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808336 (external link)
Are you talking about geometrical clipping from the edges of the sensor with 200mm, or total subject light with the 100mm, or something else?

Nope. You get the same total light, but it is spread over 4 times the area. As the sensor doesn't expand, you are going to only get a portion of the total light on the sensor. Think about your earlier comment "More pixels on subject"- the subject is providing the same illumination. That illumination is spread over more pixels. This is where "1/4 the photons" comes into play, when doubling the focal length.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808336 (external link)
Is the latter a problem? You would only zoom so far as to not clip part of your desired composition away. There may be some practical reasons to not zoom as tight (in case you need to rotate, or the tracking shifts, or AF is better with that lens when you zoom out).

I never indicated it was a problem, just commenting on the math involved to maintain f/4 from 100 to 200 mm.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,778 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2560
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 8 months ago by Wilt.
     
Feb 10, 2019 11:35 as a reply to  @ Capn Jack's post |  #107

When pixel decimation zoom is used, the APPARENT diffraction is indeed increased! After all, if you throw away (1/2 * X) and (1/2 * Y) pixels in order to zoom digitally by 2X, the diffraction is 'the same' as it still occupies the same number of pixels as projected by the lens to the sensor, but the visible apparent diffraction is now 2X larger!

Similarly, the DOF is shallower because the CofC blur disks are also 2X larger when 1/2 the pixels in each direction are thrown away.

To illustrate, let us assume a photo segment of the subject which is 100 pixels wide, and the diffraction is 4 pixels wide while the CofC blur disk is 20 pixels wide on sensor. When digital zoom is used we throw away half of the pixels, leaving 50 pixels...the subject appears to be 2X larger than originally projected onto the sensor. The diffraction is still 4 pixels wide, the CofC blur is still 20 pixels wide, nothing has shrunk or enlarged their sizes on the sensor itself. But because the image is enlarged by 2X (to fill the same print or to fill the same LCD) both are twice as apparent to the viewer as they were before crop.

That same principle explains why Large Format is useable at f/44 while 135 format is limited by diffraction to f/22. The diffraction effect is identical for large format f/22 lens as it is in the 135 format f/22 lens, but 4x5 is enlarge by 0.25X as much as the 135 format to fill the 8x10 print, so the diffraction is LESS APPARENT in the print made from large format neg.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,479 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 493
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Feb 10, 2019 12:09 as a reply to  @ post 18808253 |  #108

You can turn the "preview" image off.... so that is a none issue. As far as tracking.... was going to post a run from yesterday. For the challenge I shot a gymnastics meet with an a6300 and a metabones'd Canon L lens. It's a run of 21 frames of a gal doing the floor exercise. Just working out how to do that without posting too many images and clogging up this lively discussion... will try to post later the afternoon.... need to run to another shoot.


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,968 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 4122
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 10, 2019 12:21 |  #109

Croasdail wrote in post #18808402 (external link)
You can turn the "preview" image off.... so that is a none issue. As far as tracking.... was going to post a run from yesterday. For the challenge I shot a gymnastics meet with an a6300 and a metabones'd Canon L lens. It's a run of 21 frames of a gal doing the floor exercise. Just working out how to do that without posting too many images and clogging up this lively discussion... will try to post later the afternoon.... need to run to another shoot.

Are you aware of the EOS-R situation? The "preview" that you can't turn off? It's horrible and definitely distracting.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,937 posts
Gallery: 1337 photos
Likes: 7808
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
Post edited 8 months ago by Capn Jack.
     
Feb 10, 2019 12:27 |  #110

Wilt wrote in post #18808396 (external link)
When pixel decimation zoom is used, the APPARENT diffraction is indeed increased! After all, if you throw away (1/2 * X) and (1/2 * Y) pixels in order to zoom digitally by 2X, the diffraction is 'the same' as it still occupies the same number of pixels as projected by the lens to the sensor, but the visible apparent diffraction is now 2X larger!

Similarly, the DOF is shallower because the CofC blur disks are also 2X larger when 1/2 the pixels in each direction are thrown away.

To illustrate, let us assume a photo segment of the subject which is 100 pixels wide, and the diffraction is 4 pixels wide while the CofC blur disk is 20 pixels wide on sensor. When digital zoom is used we throw away half of the pixels, leaving 50 pixels...the subject appears to be 2X larger than originally projected onto the sensor. The diffraction is still 4 pixels wide, the CofC blur is still 20 pixels wide, nothing has shrunk or enlarged their sizes on the sensor itself. But because the image is enlarged by 2X (to fill the same print or to fill the same LCD) both are twice as apparent to the viewer as they were before crop.

That same principle explains why Large Format is useable at f/44 while 135 format is limited by diffraction to f/22. The diffraction effect is identical for large format f/22 lens as it is in the 135 format f/22 lens, but 4x5 is enlarge by 0.25X as much as the 135 format to fill the 8x10 print, so the diffraction is LESS APPARENT in the print made from large format neg.

I see what you are saying- it is an apparent change, not an actual change. However, reduced depth of field is generally associated with larger f-stops, is it not?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Croasdail
making stuff up
7,479 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 493
Joined Apr 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Feb 10, 2019 12:43 as a reply to  @ Choderboy's post |  #111

No, I am not. What's the situation? Can you not decide to not have review images displayed?

Here is my issue, and it's just a personal thing. I started shooting digital for sports back in 2005 - made the move. I had the original 1D and a 10D as a second body. Was it easy - nope, but we took images that still have compelling stories today. A few pages ago TeamSpeed posted a bunch of his images - to which someone said they thought they were not tack sharp. I think people have completely lost what is important at the end of the day with photography. A tack sharp image of something no one cares about is worthless. A slightly missed focus shot of something that conveys a story is far more important. I didn't see one image there that "technically" was off so much it wasn't usable.

A 1DX with the most expensive lens is the least important thing to creating images that tell a story, or make people take notice. This obsession on perpetual hardware upgrades... its the wrong conversation. I have no doubt someone with an Olympus or Fuji can come up with images that are more impactful that someone who just has a huge credit limit. Trusting the camera to do all the thinking for you is not photography. Thats just mashing a button... and a big wallet. And its not replicable. I'll climb down off my soap box here. I get a big long lens helps shoot motorsport. But you don't need a 13,000 dollar lens and a 6,000 dollar camera body to do it. You just have to know what kind of shots your camera can yield for you, and mastering that....

Anyway.... so what's the problem with the R's review images?


Mark
Its by knowing and mastering all the rules that you learn which ones you can break.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,778 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2560
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 8 months ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 10, 2019 13:08 |  #112

Capn Jack wrote in post #18808416 (external link)
I see what you are saying- it is an apparent change, not an actual change. However, reduced depth of field is generally associated with larger f-stops, is it not?

As for the f/stop effect, yes the blur circle gets larger in true size (on the sensor) as you increase the aperture diameter. But it is not all that simple.
Folks do not understand the CofC because it typically is explained poorly. Understand this explanation...


  1. The CofC is the size of the blur which still fools the eye+brain into thinking 'in focus' -- after enlargement to 8x10 print viewed from 12".
    In truth it is a blur CIRCLE, not a sharp point. On the sensor the CofC blur circle is 0.025mm, for example.
    Let us also assume that the diffraction is some value like 0.01mm on the sensor (number chosen only for illustrative purposes...reality might be nothing close to this size!)
  2. If you enlarge by a factor of 8, the image is 8X as large, but so are the blur circles. So when you view at 12", the whole image is 8X as big but so are the blur circles, which are now 0.2mm in size, but viewed at 12" away they fool your eye+brain into thinking 'in focus'.
    The diffraction is now 0.08mm in size, but at 12" your eye does not detect it.
  3. When you crop 1/2 of the image in each direction and then enlarge to the same final print size as #2, your blur circles enlarge by 4X because of the 2X larger print and because you are enlarging the cropped image to fill that same print (2X * 2X = 4X) So the blur circle is now 0.4mm in size, and your brain is fooled into thinking 'less DOF than in #2.
    The diffraction blur is magnified by 4X in the process as well, so the diffraction is 2X as apparent as in #2, at 0.16mm in size where your eye might think 'too much diffraction, so you think "I need to shoot again with a bigger aperture to reduce diffraction!"

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
3,349 posts
Gallery: 82 photos
Likes: 1439
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Medford, Oregon
Post edited 8 months ago by mdvaden.
     
Feb 10, 2019 13:16 |  #113

Choderboy wrote in post #18808409 (external link)
Are you aware of the EOS-R situation? The "preview" that you can't turn off? It's horrible and definitely distracting.

After reading your reply, I turned on my EOS R because what you wrote sounded unfamiliar. Its been a while since I setup my camera, but mine doesn't have a preview image. I just turn it on, look in the viewfinder and it's ready to shoot.

It sounds like you failed to achieve certain settings if you are seeing something horrible.

But yeah ... I can flip the switch, lift it to my eye, and whatever direction I point, the EVF image is seemingly instantaneous as I move the camera around the room here. I had to double check because its not something I really think about.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Capn ­ Jack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,937 posts
Gallery: 1337 photos
Likes: 7808
Joined Mar 2010
Location: NE USA
     
Feb 10, 2019 13:38 |  #114

Wilt wrote in post #18808452 (external link)
As for the f/stop effect, yes the blur circle gets larger in true size (on the sensor) as you increase the aperture diameter. But it is not all that simple.
Folks do not understand the CofC because it typically is explained poorly. Understand this explanation...


  1. The CofC is the size of the blur which still fools the eye+brain into thinking 'in focus'...in truth it is a blur CIRCLE, not a sharp point
  2. If you enlarge more by a factor of 2, the image is twice as large, but so are the blur circles; so when you view at same distance as previously, the whole image is twice as big but so are the blur circles, so your perception is the DOF Zone is half as deep as it was before
  3. When you crop (1/2 of the image in each direction) and then enlarge to the same print size as #2, your blur circle enlarge by 4X because of the 2X larger print and because you are enlarging the cropped image to fill that same print (2X * 2X = 4X) So the CofC and the diffraction blur are both magnified by 4X in the process, so CofC is 2X shallower (compared to #2) and the diffraction is 2X as apparent as in #2

I do understand- and the Circle of Confusion is analogous to the point-spread function I'm more familiar with.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,975 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5814
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 8 months ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 10, 2019 14:16 |  #115

John Sheehy wrote in post #18808271 (external link)
Who is "you"? I really need to figure out how attributions work in this forum software. I see posts with no header reference to the post replied to, ones with just the post number, and some with the poster's name. What causes these variations? This is why I always include some quoted text, when I am replying to something.

That you is you... You quoted and replied to my reply to someone else stating that one day the 1D series will be obsolete when cell phones can equal those results, but then went about a discussion of FF vs crop sensors. I was talking about that little tiny circle of a lens and camera on the back of a cell phone, not a 1" sensor, the one I can cover with my pinky tip. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,975 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5814
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Feb 10, 2019 14:18 |  #116

Two Hot Shoes wrote in post #18808357 (external link)
Hi John, the X-T3 has a lag time of 0.005 seconds so, you know, not really any issue at all. This laggy EVF hangup is old news from the first mirrorlesss cameras like the original A7 in 2013/4. Not something to be concerned about with modern mirrorless cameras. Also higher end mirrorless cameras are blackout free, as there is no mirror to flap up blocking the viewfinder - better all round, especially as we can do that at 30 FPS with a one second pre-capture is needed.

You can choose how long you want the 'immediate preview' to be; 0.5 second 1 second or even turn it off so there is no preview. So yea, no problem there either.

Indecently to put the 0.005 second 'lag time' of a modern EVF into context a fast reaction time of a person is 200ms (0.2 of a second).

Yes, the XT3 seems like a fun mirrorless. I hope Canon really makes some headway in EVF lag, blackout, AF speed (still needs a bit more) and burst rates. Not insurmountable, but they are behind the eight ball right now.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
N2bnfunn
Senior Member
Avatar
713 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 62
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 10, 2019 14:28 |  #117

Ok call me a hypocrite I was one the main ones on here blasting the mirrorless cameras.. he he Now I am going to order me a Canon EOS R next week.

Man how things look different sometimes. ha ha


Canon EOS R EF 70-200 L 2.8 L 24-70 2.8L II Canon Pixma PRO-1 3 Canon 600EX-RT Speedlites

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
36,975 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5814
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
Post edited 8 months ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 10, 2019 14:46 |  #118

Mirrorless is fun, I enjoy focus peaking in the viewfinder, and manual focus is so nice now. 2x on the 100-400 with AF is great as well, love that too! Nothing wrong with purchasing the EOS R after thinking it wasn't going to be all that good, it has been shown to be a very good first round of FF mirrorless from Canon. The RP is a bit confusing to me, but there must be a market for it, if people are still buying the 6D2, then the RP is what should really be considered at this point. Perhaps the pro version should be called the RiP, signaling the end of the DSLR lineup?


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,968 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 4122
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Feb 10, 2019 15:12 |  #119

Croasdail wrote in post #18808432 (external link)
No, I am not. What's the situation? Can you not decide to not have review images displayed?

Here is my issue, and it's just a personal thing. I started shooting digital for sports back in 2005 - made the move. I had the original 1D and a 10D as a second body. Was it easy - nope, but we took images that still have compelling stories today. A few pages ago TeamSpeed posted a bunch of his images - to which someone said they thought they were not tack sharp. I think people have completely lost what is important at the end of the day with photography. A tack sharp image of something no one cares about is worthless. A slightly missed focus shot of something that conveys a story is far more important. I didn't see one image there that "technically" was off so much it wasn't usable.

A 1DX with the most expensive lens is the least important thing to creating images that tell a story, or make people take notice. This obsession on perpetual hardware upgrades... its the wrong conversation. I have no doubt someone with an Olympus or Fuji can come up with images that are more impactful that someone who just has a huge credit limit. Trusting the camera to do all the thinking for you is not photography. Thats just mashing a button... and a big wallet. And its not replicable. I'll climb down off my soap box here. I get a big long lens helps shoot motorsport. But you don't need a 13,000 dollar lens and a 6,000 dollar camera body to do it. You just have to know what kind of shots your camera can yield for you, and mastering that....

Anyway.... so what's the problem with the R's review images?

I believe it is Canon just hiding the blackout. Instead of a blackout, you get a quick frame inserted. It's bad as it fools you into thinking you are looking at the world but you are looking at the world a moment ago. There are lots of videos on youtube showing it. If you are tracking something moving it fools you into stopping panning, then you have to catch up. EOS-R blackout search finds a lot of talk and videos.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Choderboy
I Chimp, therefore I am
Avatar
5,968 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 4122
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post edited 8 months ago by Choderboy. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 10, 2019 15:28 |  #120

https://www.youtube.co​m …1q6eLPD4&featur​e=youtu.be (external link)

It does not look that bad watching the hands of a clock. On a running person though, it sucks.
Half a second? after you take the photo. In this video they call it "screen freezing" which is a good description.


Dave
Image editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,953 views & 54 likes for this thread
"The DSLR is dead" EOS R and cell phone cameras taking over - so they say
FORUMS News & Rumors Camera Rumors and Predictions 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is sageybadegey
874 guests, 319 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.