mfurman wrote:
I completely disagree. I want to see it and make my own decisions. As I explained earlier, "pixel quality" matters to me as well.
OK - but it should certainly not be the default result shown; the fair one should. And since so few people really understand that the graph actually compares 57% of the 5D2 frame to the whole D700 frame, it should only be shown with a big red warning saying that the graph in no way represents any kind of comparison between the two cameras on a level playing field.
If a car review site used different length seconds to time 0-60 times it would be ridiculed. This is no different.
brainiac wrote:
OK - but it should certainly not be the default result shown; the fair one should. And since so few people really understand that the graph actually compares 57% of the 5D2 frame to the whole D700 frame, it should only be shown with a big red warning saying that the graph in no way represents any kind of comparison between the two cameras on a level playing field.
If a car review site used different length seconds to time 0-60 times it would be ridiculed. This is no different.
Agree with Brainiac, DXO should eliminate the "screen comparison"; it's next to worthless ... oops, my mistake ... the "screen comparison" is worthless.
brainiac wrote:
OK - but it should certainly not be the default result shown; the fair one should. And since so few people really understand that the graph actually compares 57% of the 5D2 frame to the whole D700 frame, it should only be shown with a big red warning saying that the graph in no way represents any kind of comparison between the two cameras on a level playing field.
If a car review site used different length seconds to time 0-60 times it would be ridiculed. This is no different.
yes sir, it does 0-60 in 2.1 Porsche seconds
no sir, that Enzo there only does 0-60 in 7.2 Ferrari seconds
oh my! that Porsche sounds like it has much quicker acceleration! I'll take two.
He was also silly enough to think that displaying web size images tells you anything about an 18MP camera other than that it wasn't grossly misfocussed (and even then some of them appear soft).
Sean Mullins wrote:
Great NHL action. Did you use AF for these? If so, what were your AF settings? Thanks!
Thank you.. I am actually shooting another game tonight and will try it out further...
But to answer your question, I was testing out various modes of AF servo and the one that seemed to be the most consistent was (as usual) center point only. I plan to try out a few other modes (expanded af points, etc) tonight. I'll post my results asap.
Seperate thread about Hot Pixels in a 7D - I counted three of 'em (not bad given there are 18 million), but figured I'd pop an image of what they look like here for those interested. I've usually seen red ones - the white cross is something new I haven't seen before.
apdieb wrote:
Thank you.. I am actually shooting another game tonight and will try it out further...
But to answer your question, I was testing out various modes of AF servo and the one that seemed to be the most consistent was (as usual) center point only. I plan to try out a few other modes (expanded af points, etc) tonight. I'll post my results asap.
I've seen people having pretty good results with center point, expansion turned on. I'd be out testing mine, but it's been raining since I got home from work so I'm house-bound. Doing a little AF testing in one-shot as well as some high-ISO experimentation.
ejmartin wrote:
Is this the RAW data or a conversion? I've seen hot pixels in 7D RAW data, and it was a single isolated pixel that was stuck at RAW saturation.
As-shot JPEG's straight from the camera. DPP and ACR map out the hot pixels.
Alek Komarnits wrote: Seperate thread about Hot Pixels in a 7D - I counted three of 'em (not bad given there are 18 million), but figured I'd pop an image of what they look like here for those interested. I've usually seen red ones - the white cross is something new I haven't seen before.
