September 17, 2014, 07:56:31 PM

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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
1
What im expecting.
Well naiv as i am as amateur photographer, better image quality!  :)

Im just puzzled that i look at a new camera and the images look not better than from the camera i already own since 2010.

What does 'better image quality' mean to you? If "image quality" can be measured objectively (and that's debatable), it surely depends on numerous criteria, some determined by the sensor/processor, some by the lens (and perhaps some by composition, lighting, etc).

Would you expect every aspect of camera technology to noticeably improve with every generation? Some areas will be more mature than others. As far as colour/noise/detail are concerned, I don't expect to see all that much difference - especially in benign circumstances (though hopefully there will be some, at the margins).

Clearly the developers of this camera have focused on other aspects of the image-making process - autofocus and frame rate, especially. Those are critical for getting the shot (for the sort of work this body is aimed at). But even then, you can get great shots with older technology. I think the higher the grade of equipment, the more targeted the improvements will be. They'll give a small edge in critical situations. That would seem most useful to professionals and enthusiasts. I might see the benefit of 10fps vs 6fps, or an extra stop of useable high ISO. The average snapper likely wouldn't.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 07:37:04 PM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? :o

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.

Miss spelled word, I was patiently trolling until mine arrives in November. Or maybe not....

Lol, I didn't mean you!

3
EOS Bodies / Re: High ISO Samples from the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 16, 2014, 10:51:52 AM »
Well that new autofocus system in the 7DII is doing really well - the ISO3200 picture on his web page looks completely out of focus (front focus I'd say.) ISO25600 looks similarly misfocused.

So that new AF system in the 7DII ... so advanced that it can't deal with a model that's relatively stationary...

Yes, I'm sure that's the problem.  Thanks for point pointing that out, dilbert.  Maybe his real problem is that he thinks the 7DII is a lens.  Or you do.   ::)

Are you suggesting that the AF problems aren't the cameras and are the lens instead?

So all of those people that complained about the 5D2's AF should really have been complaining about lenses intead?

No, I'm suggesting that your allegation that the 7DII's AF has a problem is baseless trolling.

Are you saying that if of all the shots from the 7D II that you have seen 1 shot out of 6 that misses focus that there is no bases for a problem? :o

I am just hoping this guy was a bad photographer.

A sample size of 6 is far too small (in any context) to draw any conclusions. Maybe the next 6 would all have been in focus, maybe the next 60 would have (or vice versa). As others have said, we know next to nothing about the lens, AF mode, technique, and user capability. To immediately point to it being a flaw in the camera body is patently trolling as Neuro said. Let's just hope it was meant lightheartedly.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:21:16 PM »
The dpreview run down of features makes this a much more competent-sounding device than all the rumours made it sound - I suppose it's easy to get bogged down by the negatives. But the biggest pleasant surprise has been the price - starting RRP of £1599 isn't bad at all. I might save up! :)

5
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 12, 2014, 07:26:41 AM »
I actually don't really care anymore, because lately I've been looking at the mirrorless options from Fuji (X-T1) and Sony (A7). But I'm expecting the same, rather poor dynamic range at low ISO for the 7DII which we, Canon users, all know too well.

Yawn. If this is an action camera, as most suggest, then low-ISO DR is way down the list of what's important. Landscape photographers should look elsewhere.

And what about action photographers? Is limited DR ok for them? Is the 2+ stops DR improvement achieved by the A7s irrelevant? It isn't just a low ISO game anymore. DR has been improved across the board, top to bottom, high to low, in Sony's sensors. Canon no longer has the lead at high ISO. The lead they once enjoyed was marginal at best as well. At high ISO, it isn't even so much about "recovery"...your still generally 'limited' (using the word very loosely) to about 9 stops on an A7s at ISO 51200, which is largely going to fit within the dynamic range of modern screens. The major difference with the A7s is the massive increase to SNR...it's about double or so compared to even the vaunted 1D X, on top of the huge DR increase (6.6 stops 1D X, 8.8 stops A7s, at ISO 51200). THAT is HUGE for high ISO IQ. Massively huge. It means a literal one-stop or greater improvement in noise, which I didn't even think was possible (and I still don't know how they did it....other than the fact that their sensor just seems to suck up light like it was candy.)

It being lower on the list than, say, AF points/speed/accuracy doesn't mean DR isn't important. However I haven't found DR lacking at higher ISO on the 5D3. Better quality is always welcome, but will it have much practical impact on our work? You've got a bee in your bonnet about this now.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: How does the reveal of the final 7D2 specs make you feel?
« on: September 11, 2014, 07:52:58 PM »
I actually don't really care anymore, because lately I've been looking at the mirrorless options from Fuji (X-T1) and Sony (A7). But I'm expecting the same, rather poor dynamic range at low ISO for the 7DII which we, Canon users, all know too well.

Yawn. If this is an action camera, as most suggest, then low-ISO DR is way down the list of what's important. Landscape photographers should look elsewhere.

7
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 11, 2014, 07:32:23 AM »
Are you guys really having the 'skill trumps kit' and 'X kit doesn't provide 10x better images than Y so isn't worth 10x as much'?

Errr.. no, of course we're not - as is obvious from what we've actually written.

We're saying that "for the most part, the differences in end-result between very good gear and "the best" aren't as big as the price premium might imply, and that we're extremely satisfied with the results we get without top-of-the-range Canon kit".

Simple enough. The point has been subverted into something else, of course, but that's what we're saying...

Whether Canon gear is "worth" 10x (or whatever) as much, is an entirely personal judgement, and frankly I couldn't care less how other people spend their money, nor have I any inclination to pass judgement on how other people use their hard-earned.

But I choose not to use a Canon supertele - not because I can't afford one, but because it would not suit my shooting style, nor would it improve my results to the extent that it would need to, for the purchase to be worthwhile to me.

Diminishing returns, pure and simple. And, last time I checked, I was still allowed to have a personal opinion about that...

Sure you are. Sheesh, no need to get so worked up about it!

8
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 11, 2014, 07:30:35 AM »
Thanks for the feedback jrista and scyrene. For most of the morning I did have the 1.4x TC on the 300mm. But I was walking out of a canyon area (late in the afternoon), where I'd been photographing a waterfall, as a long'ish exposure, hence the tripod (I normally use a monpod for birding). As I walked out, I fitted the 300mm, just in case I saw anything interesting. I did think at the time, I should put the 1.4x on. Oh well, next time ;)

Was that on the 5D3? ISO 400 seems low to me. I'd recommend ETTR by using a higher ISO then darkening in post, which can actually help reduce (the appearance of) noise overall. A lovely capture anyhow :)
As it is, I tend to use ETTR by exposing 1/3 to 1/2 a stop over. One of my custom settings (for birding) is set to a center focus point, spot metering, with an ISO of 400 (for me, when using the 300mm it's a balance between using a higher ISO and cropping, if that makes sense). In the case of a quick bird shot, I can turn the dial to the custom setting (it's C3, meaning, I can turn the dial without looking, knowing what the setup is). That's the reason for the ISO 400. It was a rather quick reaction :)

Ah ok. Goes with the territory :)

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 10, 2014, 07:55:09 PM »
Mr Bean, would you mind letting me know what ISO that image was taken at?
I am going to hazard a guess - Me thinks >= ISO 8000

From a cropping perspective, this is the original, image. I would have used the 1.4x TC but the light was low as it was (1/125 @ f4.5 ISO 400 - using a tripod as a monopod, one leg extended, as I was moving around and no time for the tripod setup).



Was that on the 5D3? ISO 400 seems low to me. I'd recommend ETTR by using a higher ISO then darkening in post, which can actually help reduce (the appearance of) noise overall. A lovely capture anyhow :)

10
Smart phones are taking over because people can't be bothered.

My wife is an iPhoneographer (which drives me up the wall) but if she's in the shot, she wants a high-end P&S or DSLR used because she KNOWS what they look like on the computer.

2 more years your toaster will probably have a camera in it.

Just so you know, I had to google that . . . just to be sure someone didn't have a kickstarter for that already. >:(
What a great idea! A toaster with a camera! It could tell how well toasted the bread is!

That's what transparent toasters are for! http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004H62AQA

:D

And call me an old cynic, but most images don't warrant more than a glance. The higher up the scale you go, the more (some photographers at least) feel the need to add a load of narrative to justify banality. Most photos, for most people (I observe) are valuable primarily in their subject matter. Which is fine. Banality is fine too. Just don't pretend it's actually profundity.

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: September 10, 2014, 03:58:51 PM »
Are you guys really having the 'skill trumps kit' and 'X kit doesn't provide 10x better images than Y so isn't worth 10x as much'?

Clearly both skill and kit matter. The more benign the conditions, the more forgiving the situation of lower-priced equipment. And you can't make objective comparisons of price and quality - people's budgets, levels of perfectionism, and patience vary hugely. I am very lucky to have a mark II supertele, and I don't look down on anyone who doesn't. But for me, it means I'm rarely limited by the lens. Incidentally I chose the 500 over the 600 because for me the extra 30% in price wasn't worth it for another 100mm.

12
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:17:43 PM »
I should also add that I enjoy postprocessing nearly as much as shooting!

And as for raw+jpeg, if all bodies did in-camera raw-jpeg processing (like the 5D3) then it wouldn't be necessary at all really. I use raw+jpeg on the EOS-M at the moment so I have something to work with.

Also I should add that when doing time lapse there is no way shooting raw is feasible for me, but that's a rare exception.

13
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 10, 2014, 11:28:48 AM »
My progression has been the same as most others here. I'd never willingly go back to jpeg. This summer I've been without my main editing computer (with Lightroom), and I've had to use in-camera jpeg processing from raw. There is no comparison, especially for noise reduction and sharpening. Jpegs can look good, but they are so much less flexible.

14
I'll do a bit more research - I see Kenko tubes appear quite similar to Canon in that they use metal where it matters

Brand doesn't really matter with extension tubes since there's no optics.  Metal is probably better and you definitely want the pass through contacts.  I've got cheap Opteka's and they're fine.  They fit snug and are perfectly solid.  I don't think I'd trust a full stack of them to hold the weight of my 300-800 but on a tripod its no worries.

Internally, the Kenko tubes are plastic. I had one shear through when mounted to a large lens/teleconverter combination. The screws in the metal mount are fitted into plastic underneath. I've heard that Canon tubes are stronger inside, but I have no firsthand evidence of that.

15
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D750 to be Canon 5D3 competitor?
« on: September 09, 2014, 10:31:04 AM »
Why are we getting sidetracked by a dodgy analogy?

Hey, it's something new. Better than reading the same progression of posts time and again.

Haha, fair enough. FWIW I don't think food or cars are a suitable comparison.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20