tomekk

Maybe start enjoying listening to music more? ;).

I think planars could be the way to go, though, not as revealing as electrostatics but could be just enough for you...physics I guess. Magnets in planars + how they're attached block air and cause problems which electrostatics don't have.

There is a reason why Audio Technica ATH-M50x (newer version but similar) is on the wall of fame @ innerfidelity .

This review will be very subjective, though. If you're into audio you know it's not only headphones but also amp+dac+cables change the sound along the way ;). On the budget, it's probably impossible to get all these components "flat"/neutral enough or whatever you want to call it so we'll have a review of different headphones connected and coloured by one particular setup and then re-coloured by Andrew's ears and head ;). Quite an explosive mix if you ask me ;). I agree with electrostatic headphones, though. My pair of older Stax ear speakers still puts smile on my face and is just on a different level that even modern high end dynamic headphones can't touch in most frequencies.

I meant "flat"/neutral headphones not flat frequency response, that's why I said, they shouldn't change sounds from input to output, but yeah, my bad. Won't "flat" headphones have flat frequency in an anechoic chamber measured at the microphone, anyway ? Then you add a person and it's not flat anymore, gets complicated and confusing because people are different with different ears and bodies. The goal was to point Dan to where he can read more about it without much pain. It's not clear for audio engineers how to properly measure this stuff anyway. Innerfidelity has quite a bit information on how to read their graphs if he wants to know what they mean.

Oh man, that's a hard one. Get familiar with reviews from this site for starters http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/innerfidelitys-wall-fame#PXUwGrDFcEBe6CG2.97. In the "wall of fame" section there is plenty of reviews at all price levels. In every review they've got a section describing SQ of all frequencies and they do proper measurements at the end. I'll give you an example of good ones with emphasis on clear/natural low end. You have to familariaze yourself with a few different ones and listen to them in store afterwards before buying. http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/hifiman-he-560-planar-magnetic-headphone-page-2#k3YPGt8IulKGtUbS.97 Keep in mind, you want Canon's L-glass in headphones. Clinical and accurate reproduction, not necessarily "beautiful" by your standards.

It could be impossible to find something like that on the cheap. Usually, only higher end headphones offer better quality. Then again, you'd need a proper amp and dac to go with it as well.

What you need are headphones with as flat frequency response as possible which basically means they don't change given input sounds on the output. Audio-Technica ATH-M50x that JCS recommended are actually pretty ok. They're fairly flat between 50 and 2khz. Beyond 2khz they get pretty messy so most sounds coming from beyond 2khz won't be accurate. http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf Here is a nice chart showing what instruments use what frequencies which you can refer to http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm Avoid any headphones you can't find frequency response chart for. They're most likely really bad if you can't find it.

How is FHD form ML looking upscaled to a 4k? I'm still sitting on a FHD Panasonic plasma since nothing beats it yet at reasonable prices (colour/contrast wise). I'm just wondering if FHD content will be watchable on 4K TVs in the future.

Lol. Guys, you do realise you sound like diehard Canon fanboys but in IT world?

That would be an advantage to using a clog profile and difference would be much greater to what Andrew is saying.

Yeah, it never will be true log but it seems 8bit footage + log is hardly advantage to Andrew's flat profile. I believe him on this one because he had both 1DC and 1DX II and compared them properly. I think, more bits is needed to take full advantage of a log file.

Calm down, just asking ;). Sony is doing what it's doing because they have to in order to compete, not because they're nice to us. Even then it's worse quality for better features so they're not ahead in all aspects of the game, yet.

Maybe it just shows Sony isn't at all superior to much hated Canon and there is logic behind what Canon does? With current technology you get either reliability or features it seems. Small CPU intensive codec = overheating, beefy old one, crop = reliability.

Haha, good point :D Let's change it to "close to extinction" ;).

Do you guys think there is a future in manual lenses, though? Won't they become obsolete once DPAF is good enough? Similar to manual still lenses extinction after AF got good enough for pro use.

I do big prints of my photos. High end ink printer + fine art archival paper and they will last if you keep them at home in normal conditions. UV light is cut out by windows at home. Having gigabytes of photos is a big no-no for me, though. Quality over quantity.

On the other hand, even with a medium format 8k 1000fps for 100$ most people will never produce anything decent

I don't see why this wouldn't count as sensor's performance? From what I understand it's done at the sensor level and it doesn't degrade data (quite opposite) so it's logically sensor's performance, right? I think, there has to be a distinction between a hardware denoising and software denoising done on an already processed and compressed/converted output which degrades data (which is what they suspect in their article I believe). By already processed I mean after conversion from ADC to a target colour space and therefore already compressed from sensor's output (if I get the science right). Even though people call it raw data, it's not a raw output from the sensor and denoising can be done in post in this case (which is cheating in my dictionary). It's basically like denoising a raw file in lightroom. You've got details extinction but it looks cleaner. Quite a few DSLRs do it getting better reviews in noise performance even though they shouldn't. The trend is worrying so I think it's important to always single them out if possible, at least in semi-pro and pro gear. Consumers are a lost case. They've got no clue and don't want/don't have time to find out. All marketing BS buzz word gets them to buy things as we can see by TVs' menus ;).

I think, overall score is pretty much meaningless and comparisons between some models are pointless. It's like arguing about cars: Me: My sports car has V12 5L engine, rear wheel drive, 700BHPs, 2 seats. You: ok, but my family car has 7 seats, 4x more space, better audio system,more safety features, all wheel drive, mpg is 5x better, emissions are 10x lower, it's 20x cheaper, 50x cheaper to maintain... and it's much quieter because it's a hybrid. Therefore, you clearly overpaid for a worse car because you scored less overall ! You can't even take family out for a picnic, hellooooo!!!

Doesn't RAW data have to be converted to a correct colour space before doing anything else? How would denoising work on RAW data it it hasn't be converted to the target colour space. I thought it would look something like this: raw data>reference colour space>target colour space(sRGB/RGB)>denoising. If 5dmk3 has poor implementation, then 99% of the cameras have poor implementation The point is, that sometimes magic is just magic and not what's really happening. Like current HDR TVs or 1080p on a Canon 5dMK3

Are you sure software noise reduction (the one you can turn on/off in camera options) happens on the RAW data and not on a compressed file? Playing with a JPEG file I'm pretty sure I can denoise it much better in Photoshsop than through in camera option... I'll check with H264 footage to confirm when I have some free time.

This is different to what I meant. All this time I meant only software noise reduction (my fault if I wasn't clear about it but I was relating to the article all this time and their findings). If it's hardware based then it's fine because it's something entirely different and cannot be replicated in software. I'm not sure what you mean. Even in consumer cameras there is usually an option to adjust settings. Do you mean a consumer camera (or any camera really) would do a better denoising if I left in camera denoising option on (even if it's a JPEG) than I would do in Photoshop if I left it off?

I used "cheating" because I'm tired of a political correct vocabulary. If we let companies off the hook in these kind of situations we'll get exploited until we die and it's just going to get worse, IMHO. I don't have anything against noise reduction or anything they do anywhere in the processing pipeline as long as they don't lie/cover it up so that objective tests can be done against those products. Generally, everything that's done digitally can be done with better results in post due to high processing power that's available and with much more precise control. Could you link me to an article about sensor-specific noise that needs to be dealt with in camera? Simple logic tells me that if there is a sensor-specific noise on top of a regular noise then it's a crappy sensor, but I'm probably missing something.

If they do it digitally, then it could as well be done in post leaving the choice to user I believe. Why would you want noise reduction applied on your DSLR without having any control on how it was applied? There are problems with noise reduction algos that could sometimes degrade an image. If it's applied without user's knowledge, it's cheating too. It's not a RAW sensor output anymore it's RAW + an algo output which makes the whole test skewed. Now, if you would want to compare other sensors to this one, you would have to denoise their outputs first and then compare. I'm not saying that's the case here, obviously.