Jump to content

Anton Zverev

Members
  • Content Count

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Anton Zverev reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 80D video quality still atrocious   
    It only sounds impressive until you consider what the competition did years before when nobody was looking because it didn't reach the popular conscious yet and have a Canon or Nikon badge.
    The on-chip ADC converters were pioneered by Sony years ago and it has taken Canon, dragging their heels along the floor for 6 years, to implement the technology. and then only in a very small selection of high end models in 2016.
    By the way, we've moved waaaay beyond on-chip A/D per row, to gluing and integrating DRAM directly to the back of the sensor as seen on the latest 1" CMOS from Sony. So Canon are only just catching up to yesterday's advancement in CMOS deign. Yesterdays.
    The on-chip ADC cleans up the readout noise so you have more usable blacks. If people choose to interpret this as more dynamic range then fair play to them, that's their interpretation. I would never max out the dynamic range of any digital image, because it creates Digital Sick™
    In reality for all the quoting of 14 stops by DXOmark for Sony and 12 stops for Canon, there's not as much difference as the specs imply.
    However as soon as Canon start doing sensors that might get closer to 14 stops on DXOMark like Sony have been doing for almost half a decade, everyone pisses themselves. The power of the brand manifest!
    As for the number of phase detect AF points, you need millions of them on the sensor because they get so little light and are so small, compared to the smattering of a few of them in the viewfinder of a DSLR. Needless to say I find the 400+ on the A6300 work better than the millions on the 80D, so go figure.
    It's as if Canon have turned up to a party 5 hours late with a 2 euro bottle of fizz.
    There's no denying Canon get the ergonomics right in a very solid way mostly, but as for the images... The facts are:
    70D = shit video
    80D and EOS M3 = slightly less shit
    7DII = 2012 vintage softness
    C100 = Same, but very expensive 2010 vintage Panasonic GH2 resolution (albeit better in low light)
    C300 = exactly the same but even more expensive
    1D X II = slightly worse than the 1D C's image quality, but $6k and will likely be superseded in under 6 months by the 5D IV, GH5, A7S III or any number of others
    And this my friends is why I will not be wasting my money on any of them.
    Although the AVCHD quality on the C100 is very nice given the specs, I must admit that much!
  2. Like
    Anton Zverev reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 80D video quality still atrocious   
    You misunderstood my point
    a good DP makes a great shot in the first place, so it won't be so ordinary
    He maximises the tool
    all that is obvious
    However beautiful image quality can add 'spice' to just an 'OK' shot where the DP is limited in terms of his location, poor light, and boring subject matter... You have to work with what you've got sometimes and that's why a flexible and powerful image is important. Slow-mo, insane resolution and a wide dynamic range can have a wow factor in themselves, even if you're shooting very ordinary subjects on ordinary places
    as for the bad DPs, no hope for them, no matter what the camera. And yes even an Alexa can be mishandled and made to look rubbish.
    Meanwhile a drone shot of a spectacular volcano would look great on just about any camera, be it a small chip GoPro even or an iphone
    A challenging location which isn't so beautiful and is poorly lit demands more of the camera and absolutely more of the shooter too.
     
  3. Like
    Anton Zverev reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 80D video quality still atrocious   
    No that's not the message I am trying to get across.
    I am just trying to help you guys make informed decisions about the relative image quality of cameras.
    A shame you feel the need to shove this back in my face, just because it doesn't quite align with your choice of purchase.
    The core EOSHD readers get it. You're just an ungrateful hanger on with 19 posts to his name who feels he can leech all the knowledge from others on the forum, without giving anything constructive back in return.
    Almost all of your posts have focused on annoying the hell of the forum owner himself, which I might add is a rather rude way to introduce yourself into somebody's house.
    Ah you have an FS7 in the office though!
    But I thought 80D is all you need?! Hmm moire. Hmm aliasing. Hmm clipped highlights. Lovely.
    Oh but it's "bashing". Bash bash bash!!
    Can't mention the moire! Oh noooo
    That's biased!
    (No I'll think you'll find it's just a fact)
  4. Like
    Anton Zverev reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 80D video quality still atrocious   
    Look guys, we established this YEARS ago, you can shoot with a T2i or any old shit like Kendy did and do great work, especially if it is a low-fi look in the first place that you're after and you rarely use a lens other than 50mm equivalent (a wider lens would show up the lack of resolution).
    We have also established that you can then upload this to Vimeo and if the content and shooting is compelling, the locations and characters cinematic looking, well lit and they kept the ISO below 800, when the viewer watches this at 720p on a laptop or TV, they won't notice that it isn't 4K wide dynamic range.
    But image quality advances exist for a reason, they help to evolve the art of story telling and make the tools more flexible so they can be used in more challenging circumstances and a wider variety of situations.
    I love slow-mo for instance, it's a great creative tool, and I love LOG as it is a substitute for raw when you want to apply a stylised look in post and get a couple of more stops dynamic range, without the much larger file sizes. I shot this in slow-mo and LOG for creative reasons and they made an interesting subject look beautiful -
    Couldn't have done that on a T2i or 80D, or indeed any Canon camera I can afford. Do they even have decent looking 120fps on their Cinema EOS stuff??!
    And when I shot this on the A7S, GH4 and Nikon D750, the pinsharp details and lack of moire, plus the slow-mo again, helped creatively bring out the look I needed.
    If you don't want to focus on this kind of thing then fine, get the 80D and enjoy your AF. Nothing wrong with that. You might tell some great stories and do it really stylistically.
    But in my view... image quality and frame rates and extra features are there to be USED.
    Pointless writing a blog about cameras otherwise.
    If everyone was happy to stick to 80D level of image quality and features then my job would be much easier and I'd have far fewer cameras!!
    And then there is also a lot to be said for the motion cadence of a global shutter and vintage super 16 lenses too, which is what gave this shoot the look I wanted, down to a tee...
    So before you write off all the exciting specs and just nerdy pixel peeping, consider what they give creatively and stylistically and consider what you are missing out on when you sacrifice all this for convenience's sake with the 80D!!
  5. Like
    Anton Zverev reacted to Soul-Brother in Petition for Samsung NX1 hack   
    I've pledged.
    The modders are fantastic people. lets help them. Remember they are putting their own time into this.
    Perhaps those who were enthusiastic about giving donations, at the top and throughout this thread, would like to help .
×
×
  • Create New...