August 29, 2014, 06:01:58 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Aglet

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
We're not, we are asking for a demonstration of the actual achievable resolution differences when handheld and when using AF.

As JR said, there's so many variables it can become entirely subjective.
FWIW, I've had handheld AF shots from my 800e with 70-200mm f/4 VR at 200mm that are as crisp at 15th second (yes, low light) as I was getting my my 5d2 and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS 2 in bright sunlight (likely 1/400s @ f8)
Used with good glass and technique, even handheld, the ability to get very high resolution images from the d800 series is not all that difficult.  The 810's mirror action is even smoother, which should help a bit more.

So JR, if you buy or borrow that d800, don't be drinkin' too much coffee when you're test-shooting hand held lenses.  :D

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 02:47:50 AM »
Put another way, it took Nikon two generations to come up with a camera that approaches the 5DIII in overall utility...and I bet the 5DIII outsells the D810 just as it did the D800/E.

Same thing one step up – it took Nikon until the D4s to approach the 1D X.

810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by. ;)

I wonder if Canon has the 'nads to play leap-frog now.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:33:40 PM »
I've got a pile of ML bodies these days:
Fuji XT1
Fuji XE1
Fuji XA1. XM1

Pentax K01
Pentax Q
Pentax Q7

Olympus OMD EM10

The EM10 is my all around favourite ML; works great in most lighting conditions, very flexible tho the minimal number of physical controls makes you think carefully about how you want to set it up for various uses.  It can AF very quickly even with long lenses in less than ideal light; I've been impressed.  The EM1 should be even better for AF.  This is a camera that you really need to spend time with to learn, it's not as intuitive to tweak as most others I've used. EVF quality is pretty good until the lighting gets too low.

The XT1 has impressive overall IQ and low light ability. The EVF is truly excellent and can display so much more info than an OVF.  Still no SLR equivalent in operational terms but it's only really hampered by Fuji's bizarre user interface which means I haven't yet found a way to make it anywhere near as quick to change shooting modes as with an advanced SLR.  The physical controls on this camera look great, the dials feel nice when you're only playing with them, but as far as using the camera, it gets my nod for the worst buttons and control ergonomics ever, puts Nikon's Df to shame.  If they make a bunch of improvements, it will be a ML to reckon with.  As it is, it makes a fantastic still life/landscape camera or portrait monster with the fast primes.

The other fuji bodies are all quite pleasant to use, if not as fast as SLR or the XT1.

The Pentax k01 is an interesting brick of a camera that's OK to use but no EVF makes it a pain to use outdoors, much as any other non-EVF ML body.  All the Pentax ML bodies AF fast enough for most things except certain kinds of sports.

I don't have any Panasonic or Sony but Pany's new GH4 has a hybrid phase + contrast AF system that is fast and accurate enough to make DSLRs nervous about the future.

Live histograms in the EVF mean it's easy to adjust EV and see the results displayed as well as in the histogram.  Nothing to disparage here in any of them compared to OVF, just different abilities and limitations to get used to.

You have to try one. ;)

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:05:33 PM »
*Sigh* I guess I'll be renting a D800 at some point in the near future here, as I don't think anything else but real data is going to prove the point.

@PBD: Your photos of the 4WD are much more brightly exposed. I'd be willing to bet little if any data in the shadows is buried in the read noise, which means the image isn't DR limited. That's another point no one seems to get, but whatever, nothing but two RAW files, one from a 5D III and one from a D800, that I can upload so you guys can compare yourselves, is ever going to settle the issue. :P

I'd like to see the direct comparison too.  I'd turfed my 5d2 so didn't get to compare it with my d800 on the same shot.
I did have my 60D and  I used it as a comparison, taking similarly exposed shots with it and the d800 of the same scene. I've shot plenty of 60D landscapes with sun-in-frame and was able to retain adequate shadow detail when pushing them within reason.  My 60D performed better than my 5d2 in this regard.

The 60D example, which I pushed fairly hard, I posted, way back, in the HDR thread.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.msg154889#msg154889

When I was comparing the 2,  there was a considerable amount of shade information available from the d800, without showing read noise, in heavily pushed areas like the charred tree trunk, in shadow.  The 60D's file was capable of being pushed even more than I would normally want for print or display without looking bad but comparing it to the same areas of the d800's shot showed a marked difference in quality.
Top-line FF Exmor vs a crop Canon is an unfair fight to start with when, even vice-versa, the crop exmor beat my 5d2.  So, I would certainly be interested in seeing a direct FF comparison if you rent a D800 body.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: August 28, 2014, 02:09:20 AM »
I'm looking forward to seeing what features it'll have and how well it performs in various metrics.
If it really rocks, I'll consider adding one to my quiver, especially if it still uses the same battery.
The only lens I need it for is my 100-400L

- It must have greatly reduced read noise, even lower than the 70D and definitely no visible banding patterns when pushed 4 stops from low ISO raw.
- AF must be equivalent or better then 7D
- ergonomics must be excellent, I've suffered enough finger cramp on capable but uncomfortable bodies from Fuji and some others lately.
- price must be reasonable, IMO, that means I should be able to snag it within a year for $1500 or less.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 02:03:48 AM »
The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns.

When I was studying the nature of the FPN I could find on my 40D there was indeed a fixed pattern noise and another pattern noise structure that was not fixed but varied in location.
I shot some bursts at full speed and when I looked at the noise from those there was a pattern which was the same on all frames and another pattern which traveled vertically from frame to frame yet looked otherwise similar.
I'm guessing these traveling bands of noise patterns are due to high frequency interference from internal circuitry, probably some of the internal switch-mode power supplies.  It could also be ground loop type issues allowing the digital side to contribute noise to the analog side or a few other design/build compromises producing this problem.  Fortunately, my 40D's base noise levels are quite low, allowing me to push shadows quite hard w-o requiring NR but it's still not nearly as clean as a little Nikon D5100.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 01:40:27 AM »
Hi,
I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....
Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head.  While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body.  Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power.  Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power.  All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with.  In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor.  And that's not even considering the effect on battery life.  It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20.   8)
    Hmm... Pentax use 22-bits ADC many years ago... on the Pentax K10D, but the raw file is only 12-bits... then Pentax K20D use back the 14-bits ADC... just wonder why they change back to 14-bits??

   Have a nice day.
I have a K-10D.  It's a nice tool but unlikely to make use of 22 bit ADC, the noise floor is too high to matter.
I'm wondering if there was a misread quote somewhere in there (dpreview article) where the ADC may have been a more moderate number of bits but 22 bits worth of processing precision were used?..
That said, I really like the color I can get out of that camera when it comes to subjects like deeply saturated flowers.  That and that I got a mint condition body for peanuts.  ;D

8
haven't seen a camera yet that didn't have, or eventually develop, some hot pixels.
That's what dark frame subtraction's for, even the in-camera process is usable for most shots.

At least SOME mfrs, NOT Canon, NOT Nikon, allow you to map out bad pixels right from the camera menu.

Not true, doing a 'sensor clean' with the cap on for a minute or so allows the camera to remap the sensor, and gone are all the hot pixels  8)

That is indeed a great and easy way to do it! Did that last winter - it was so easy I thought someone was just trying to pull our legs with that tip.
It's not as official as an actual menu-item so can someone describe the method in more detail and I'll test it out.
I have a Rebel that developed a bunch of hot pixels as I was shooting studio shots with it over a matter of minutes.  So I can test that out.

With the lenscap on the lens, go to the camera menu and select 'manual cleaning'. The mirror will flip up and the camera black out. Leave it for a minute, then switch off the camera to complete the 'cleaning'. You can do this with any lens on the camera, no need to use the body cap.

Thanks.
Will do this when I have time and post before and after pix... 
Leaving the lens cap on seems like a funny thing to do...  My other mfr's cameras simply do this by keeping the shutters closed.  Not that it matters...

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:57:02 AM »
edit...
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

Golly Jon, how'd you end up in this scrap?  ;)

here's one of my examples from 2 years ago that's a nice match for your sun-water example.
i could have pushed the foreground even lighter but then it looked phoney, not noisy.
Shots like this, and the extreme ease of post-processing, is why I dumped most of my Canon gear and went with Exmor-based goodies.  i like shooting into the sun!  I don't like spending a lot of time mucking around with NR software if I can easily avoid it.  ... Now I can, since 2012.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888

and here's another, the shadowed bank and tree-trunks were far too dark in the as-shot image to make the shot look interesting.  Was also the 14mm end of 14-24, FWIW.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9082.msg172770#msg172770

to steal the plot line from a commercial...

money spent on changing over, a few $k difference.
effort in learning the new system, mild to moderate

time and hassle avoided, priceless

11
haven't seen a camera yet that didn't have, or eventually develop, some hot pixels.
That's what dark frame subtraction's for, even the in-camera process is usable for most shots.

At least SOME mfrs, NOT Canon, NOT Nikon, allow you to map out bad pixels right from the camera menu.

Not true, doing a 'sensor clean' with the cap on for a minute or so allows the camera to remap the sensor, and gone are all the hot pixels  8)

That is indeed a great and easy way to do it! Did that last winter - it was so easy I thought someone was just trying to pull our legs with that tip.
It's not as official as an actual menu-item so can someone describe the method in more detail and I'll test it out.
I have a Rebel that developed a bunch of hot pixels as I was shooting studio shots with it over a matter of minutes.  So I can test that out.

12
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 24, 2014, 01:51:39 AM »
Pixel size is irrelevant. SNR, and therefor dynamic range (assuming you have no other source of noise than what is inherent to the image signal itself) and noise are ultimately relative to total sensor area. That's it.

Uhmm... except when pixel size is not irrelevant.
I have to disaggree with you, somewhat, on one point; dynamic range will become limited when pixels become too small, and hence their full-well capacity decreases by more than just the ratio of their surface area.
I say this because, I suspect, the vertical dimension of the photodiode will have some aspect ratio limit with regards to the surface area.  When the surface area becomes too small, the other dimension will have to shrink also, and that will iimit the full-capacity/surface area, decreasing maximum DR.  You'll still be able to reduce noise levels quite effectively by binning/averaging, either hardware or software, but you'll reach a lower maximum when the pixel geometry gets too small.
I suspect something like 40MP smartphone camera may be an example.

EDIT:  Actually, we're already there in varying degrees.
Since many sensor systems are already counting individual electrons, smaller pixels are just gonna be DR-limited.  14bits at 1 bit per electron is only 16384 e-
Small pixels are useful even with full well counts well below that, like 2^10, but then that's already a 10-stop or less DR.  When you start averaging them, you're not gonna gain quite all of that DR back.  And then when you hit the aspect ratio limit for the photo-diode, the DR curve will really drop off.
Perhaps a resident math-whiz could graph that curve for a demo.... (nudge, hint-hint ;) )

13
haven't seen a camera yet that didn't have, or eventually develop, some hot pixels.
That's what dark frame subtraction's for, even the in-camera process is usable for most shots.

At least SOME mfrs, NOT Canon, NOT Nikon, allow you to map out bad pixels right from the camera menu.

14
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810 users are seeing spots
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:51:29 AM »
Weird. You must have had a dud. Couldn't possibly have been user error.

I'm sure I did get a dud.  Teach me to buy a first run of a new product! (Ooops, i did that again w d800s and XT1, no issues tho except the fuji's light leak)

The 5d2 banding flaw I first noticed in gray midtones and clear blue sky, then discovered I was not the only one complaining about it.
There were 2 sources of vertical banding. One was a FPN read noise with an 8 pixel cycle, like the 7D/60D/etc.

The other was a different issue, and actually the first flaw I'd noticed in the 5D2's smooth midtones.  After looking more closely I found the other noise issues.  Then I was just seriously annoyed!

But, back to the other banding issue.  I've also just discovered it in one of my recently acquired 2nd-hand Fuji XE1s.
About the central third of the sensor is affected.  When doing a dust-check at 200mm and f/22, I found this central region was also inhabited by wide bands of slightly lighter-darker areas, but not perfectly regular in alignment.  When I shot another test w-o any lens, I could no longer see this issue.  So it is some strange sort of interference effect?.. Anyone have a good guess?..  I thot it if was a simple interference it might make radial patterns but it created wider, relatively vertical bands.
When I still had the 5d2 I didn't try a no-lens shot to see if that effect was still there.
If I get some time, I'll post an example from the Fuji, it's very similar.

I suspect it might be minor misalignment of micro-lenses over their pixels producing subtle variations in effective QE.


15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D810 users are seeing spots
« on: August 21, 2014, 09:50:48 PM »
I also got my 5DII when it was first released and have never had an issue. Neither have I ever updated the firmware - 'cos I never do  ;)

The 5DII must be remembered as one of the best sorted cameras right from its inception; not a good example to use !

HEHE.. that makes me chuckle. :P

Whilst it may not have impacted you, I know people for whom it did delay their purchasing decision until after it was fixed/resolved.

yup, I remember seeing those xmas light black dot examples and I waited until after a FW update before getting one - but no matter what firmware version I ran on mine, it was a bandy bass terd of a camera.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63