September 21, 2014, 04:33:50 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 - Skulker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 06:31:15 PM »
You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.

I wouldn't call it a fatal fault. It's just an excessively annoying fault. My 450D had it. I skipped the 5D II because of it. The 7D has it, although not as bad. The 5D III has it, about as bad as the 5D II (despite the decent number of years difference between them.) So, no, not a "fatal" fault. An ugly, nasty, frustratingly annoying fault, yes.

Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent)  But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.

Eh, I knew what this community was like when I voiced my opinion. To be frank, I never really expected anything else. We crucify anything DR related, PARTICULARLY DXO (although, I still think DXO is asking for it...they need to stop being so obscure about their methodologies and weighting, and stop posting ludicrous lens test comparisons.) Anyway, people are what they are...and here they like to crush any mention of DR differences between Canon and the competition.

As for the rest...I was frustrated with the 450D read noise, that was my first DSLR. I did not like the 7D noise either, and was frustrated with it for over a year until I got the whole Topaz filter collection for about $130. DeNoise 5's debanding works extremely well on the 7D, since it has a very regular 8-column repetition. I can just set the band width to 8, and DeNoise 5 completely eliminates it. The low read noise then means the remaining random noise cleans up well. So, I was frustrated with the 7D until DeNoise came along.

Part of my frustration with the 5D III is it seems to have largely random banding. Some bands are very thin, some are quite fat. DeNoise 5 cleans up some bands, and not others. I can run multiple passes, but then I'm eating away at detail. So, the tools I used to use to deal with banding don't work nearly as well or at all with the 5D III. The color noise is also quite bad...however last night I found a new "smoothness" slider in LR 5's color NR that seems to deal with the larger-scale blotchiness...so that may help with the issue. (Crosses fingers.)

Anyway, I had frustrations with Canon read noise a long time ago. I skipped the 5D II because of it's read noise (at the time, the rumors here were that the 5D III would hit around 28mp and have improved DR...so I waited.) I'm harping on the 5D III because it's one of Canon's newest high resolution full frame sensors. It's their current technology. The 6D performs remarkably better at high ISO...and statistically given it's read noise levels, it should perform similarly at low ISO (I don't know if there are any low ISO comparisons between those two cameras...everyone focuses on the high ISO differences.) So, my reasoning is logical. I've been WAITING a long time for Canon to fix their banding issues...and the camera I have in hand right now is the 5D III.


J - I don't think you are listening. You're posts about the 5D3 just seem so un-balanced its a shame.


Have you ever heard the saying "when you're in a hole stop digging"



2

The 7D will have more pixels on target, but on a cropped field.

If your cropping the image down, the 7D will have more 'resolution' - but it might not be useful resolution depending on dozens of factors.

I had a 7D, and have a 5D III.  I did some tests where I cropped the 5D III to APSC frame-size and although lower in resolution, I saw no decernible differences with my sharpest lens.


That's what I find. I don't see the "extra reach of crop vs FF" in the real world. I see lots of people who are convinced and try to prove it. But I have no regrets about having sold my 7D.


The 7D was and is a great camera but I get better results from the 5D3 and the 1Dx.

Are you sure you aren't compensating for the reach difference? Most of the claims about full frame being better are just personal feeling about how their photos actually turn out. I suspect most of the time, framing, and therefor pixels on target, is a bit better with full frame than with APS-C, thus negating the issue. I know that with my 5D III, I'm now using 1200mm f/8 more often, which completely negates any reach advantage the 7D had. Total amount of light falling on the sensor is just a little more than the 7D, so overall noise is similar...but the greater pixel count ultimately results in sharper, crisper detail in the end. (The greater pixel count also means NR is more effective, as it can be utilized more appropriately.)

Now, when it comes to shooting at 600mm f/4 on either camera, my 7D definitely resolves more detail, no question. However, I'm also definitely reach limited at that point unless I risk scaring off my subjects to get closer.


Yes I am sure. That's why I said it and yes I am sure I am not mis compensating for reach difference. You do make some rude comments and that was one of them. You are very arrogant to imply I am incapable of making a valid comparison.


3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 04:47:48 PM »

...................


 For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.

....................


I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.


I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.


OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

My frustration is just with the fact that Canon, which actually seems to have done a better job with the 6D sensor only months later (which means it was already in production and ready to go), put such a noisy sensor in the 5D III. If they had made such significant improvements to the 6D, both at low ISO and high, why did the 5D III get one of their noisiest sensors to date? It's just frustrating.

......


You keep being very negative about the 5D3. While you may be expressing a sincerely held opinion you are going to struggle to convince many that your opinion is well founded. There are so many excellent photographs taken with the 5D3. I have seen images taken with Nikons, some of them outstanding, and I have seen and taken images with Canon. What I have never seen is anything that convinces me that either has a fatal fault or weakness.


Don't get me wrong. Some of the excellent images I have seen were yours. (I think your astro photography is excellent)  But your logic is not too hot. To say you have been frustrated by Canon for over 6 years but its only the 5D3 just isn't logical. I know that you can say you only said you were dissatisfied with the 5D3 and frustrated for years. But hey we both know that's just wriggling.


Its a shame you have been subjected to quite so much agro. But I think you have rather asked for it by the way you have expressed yourself so strongly without taking much notice of many valid points that have been raised.

4

The 7D will have more pixels on target, but on a cropped field.

If your cropping the image down, the 7D will have more 'resolution' - but it might not be useful resolution depending on dozens of factors.

I had a 7D, and have a 5D III.  I did some tests where I cropped the 5D III to APSC frame-size and although lower in resolution, I saw no decernible differences with my sharpest lens.


That's what I find. I don't see the "extra reach of crop vs FF" in the real world. I see lots of people who are convinced and try to prove it. But I have no regrets about having sold my 7D.


The 7D was and is a great camera but I get better results from the 5D3 and the 1Dx. 

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:29:30 PM »

...................


 For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.

....................


I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.


I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.


OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

6

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?



These days it seems everyone needs someone else to blame if they are not happy. Or so it seems to this grumpy old man. And that's not restricted to photographers let alone Canon or Nikon users.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:55:32 AM »

Don Haines, I'm with you.  I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts.  .......People can be very fickle.  Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi.  When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this useless WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left.  So, what more can I say. ;) Jack



I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista   ;D




I agree that people find dumb little things to complain about with every camera. [got to agree with you on that J - 8) ] ....... For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography. I'd researched and new all the technical tidbits before I got the 450D. [glad to hear you knew it all J, I was beginning to think perhaps you didn't know half as much as you think you know :-[ ]......... and that was when I really started hoping Canon would have competitive DR in the 5D III...it never happened.[How do you think other people manage to take stunning images with the 5D iii? Do you think they don't know as much as you? Do you think they are satisfied with sub standard images and you just have MUCH higher standards? Do you think maybe they are just better at using the camera than you? ::) ]

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS. Since, what, 2008? It's topped six and a half years now. How long does a guy have to wait, and keep his mouth shut? [when are you going to try keeping your mouth shut? :) :) :) ] .......  Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. ............. It just sucks. :P



I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.


The reality of it is that Canon and Nikon both make superb cameras and lenses. Each has their strong points each has their weaknesses. And many people will have different opinions, criteria and priorities. At the point of buying you make a choice.


J - for someone who seems to like to think they know "all the technical tidbits" your posts are rather emotional rather than logical.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 03:37:02 PM »
Ultimately, people vote with their wallets.  Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

True, and exactly the reason why I shoot canon, even though I really wouldn't mind having a bit more DR sometimes

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR.  As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough. 

But as I've also stated, there's more to a sensor than just low ISO DR, and there's more to a camera than just the sensor, and there's much more to a photographic system than just the camera. 

Some people don't see it that way, which is fine for them.  Barbecues, awnings, diet coke boxes, it's just more banging away on the same monotone DRum.


If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

9
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:10:08 PM »
It all depends on how good a technical photographer you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed Chromes back in the film days, you don't need raw.


only if you are happy with missing the advantages of raw. Many people like the extra flexibility. 

10
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 30, 2014, 05:07:04 PM »
I would love to have the 400 as well as the 300. I have seen some great results from it and the MK11 id definitely lighter than the MK1. Hope you get on well with it. I wonder if I should have got the 400 so I will looking at your results.




and to take part in the hijack  ;D


I tend to turn off IS if I'm panning fast, stuff like close in birds in flight or planes, and more so with a TC. In that case I up the ISO. I know someone who swears by mode 3 IS. I do use it sometimes, for high shutter speed shots, but don't find it the be all and end all.


I expect IS was off for this shot, but I do know I left it on accidentally some of the time. But hey if I can't tell is it really that important? This was ISO 1000, 1/500 sec, F5.6, 300mm f2.8 MK11 with x2TC on the 1Dx. Its almost full frame and a bit softer than I'm happy with. But I think that was my panning speed not the IS.


Red Arrows by Tom W W, on Flickr




11
While you're ordering the 200-400 you might as well order the 1Dx. ::)


12

I was photographing the red arrows today


(BTW is you want to see this image at its best look on flickr, for some reason CR makes it look soft)


Red Arrows by Tom W W, on Flickr

13
I had a very tame osprey this morning - I was able to get within about 30 feet in my mobile blind - aka car :) :



Lovely shot there.

14
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:11:23 PM »
I use the 70-200 with the 2X TC and have got good results with it.


I tend not to use it too often because I don't like the balance.


Here's one taken last weekend.

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:09:55 PM »
An Osprey from the weekend. A slow shutter speed to show the wing movement.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25