September 01, 2014, 11:27:07 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 - Orangutan

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 10:01:17 AM »
Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

Have you tried an X-T1, A77II or a6000?  Modern EVF's are completely capable of keeping up with action, no problem.

I don't think any of them are as good for action. And believe me, I want to see EVFs take over because they are far better for judging exposure and white balance and they're better for MF lenses (unless you have a custom focusing screen). But I just don't think they're there yet, and I imagine at least the next generation of sports cams (7D2; 1DX mkII) will need OVFs.
I tend to agree with you. Some of the EVF's that I have seen on mirrorless cameras are getting close, but as you say, they're not there yet.... I wonder what's under development? It can't be too long before they hit the market at a reasonable cost.

I know it's not going to happen, but wouldn't the pundits be shocked if the 7D2 was the 7DM :) A mirrorless high end Canon with EF mount and an EVF! If you think the debates now get rancorous, imagine the hornets nest that would stir up....
Sounds good to me if the cost and other features were reasonable.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 09:58:47 AM »
Well the thing is he didn't know the direction of Canon developments.

How would that even had been possible to know?

After all, it is for sure at some point "even" Canon extends DR - and that is not because of "whiners" but because it is part of sensor IQ. Would be utterly absurd to think Canon itself don't know this - they optimize the way they think it is most profitable for shareholders and they haven't been wrong this far.

You're correct.  Thus far, Canon has chosen not to substantially increased low ISO DR.  Their market share has seemingly not suffered for it.  Nikon did choose to increase DR, and their market share has not increased.  What does that say about the importance of DR to the majority of buyers?

As for jrista spending $25K on his kit not knowing the direction of Canon's developments, consider that he spent half of that total amount less than a year ago, buying a 600 II.  After 4-5 years of Canon not increasing low ISO DR, it would be somewhat foolish to assume they would do the opposite the next year...and Jon isn't foolish.  In fact, since the 5DIII had been out for a long time, the assumption was easily testable in the case of that camera before committing to a purchase.

Isn't the 600 II a bird lens, rather than a landscape lens?  Considering the quality of the lens, there might be people who own all Nikon kit except the 600 II and one body for it.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 09:56:21 AM »
I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista   ;D

Quote
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 flame war just dies out, and someone has to make new sparks.  I doubt many people are perfectly happy with their entire kit.  If I remember correctly, jrista is a computer guy, so he's probably accustomed to the rapid improvements with silicon electronic processes.  It would have been a reasonable choice years ago to select the brand with lenses and accessories you like, while assuming that the silicon part would advance quickly.  I believe he's not complaining about sensors back then, but the lack of progress.

I'm also unhappy with the lack of progress, but I haven't yet taken my skill to the point where the camera is my limitation.  And from the business side, as I've said before, Canon will upgrade their sensors when the market requires it.  This forum will not significantly affect that market.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:48:14 PM »
It'S NOT A DR TEST! DR and IQ aren't the same thing, despite the rantings of the doctor.

And I'm note sure if you're confused but the Red channel I posted ISN'T pushed. It's the regular exposure, and at 36% it starts falling apart.

That's not good. As I've said before many times, if you're ok with that, go for it.

But if you had used ETTR then you would have gotten much better results, and you freely admit there are no whites in the scene and it is not a test of DR and you had 100% control over the lighting.

Quote from: jakeymate

Dean, do try ETTR, you will get better results with either system.  After all, you've told us several times that your primary impetus to switch to Nikon was to produce better results for your paying customers.  Whether you do so with gear or technique or both is immaterial -- I think it's worth you while at least to give it a try.  I'll be interested to hear if you find any improvement on either sensor.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 11:17:53 AM »
I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

What exactly would you do to avoid read noise in the lower 36% of the image exactly? How would you expose to not have that problem?

Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?
Perhaps we have different definitions or understandings of ETTR.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETTR

My understanding is that ETTR is the ideal exposure, which maximizes gathered information and DR of the desirable parts of the scene.

Quote
After 2 years with a Mk1, 3 years with a Mk2, and a month with a Mk3, over two years with a D800, and a month with a D810, I know there is no exposure that the Nikon won't outshine the Mk2/3 etc on.
Perhaps there are other photographers of equal or greater skill who have different experiences.  The way to remove the personal experience variable from the equation is to do objective tests.

Quote
Canon's do not handle highlights better.
I've heard it both ways.  Testing will answer the question.

My first cut at a test would be something like this:

  • Construct a test environment.  It helps if there's a single brightest element.
  • Determine which scene element is the brightest that must remain unclipped.
  • Use LiveView to adjust the histogram to ETTR that element.  Possibly use a dodging tool to verify that you have the correct element ETTR.
  • Starting at that exposure, take a series of maybe 10 shots, increasing exposure by 1/3 or 1/2 stop each time.  (Note: this is because many on-camera histograms are derived from the JPEG-rendered image rather than the RAW data.)
  • In post-processing, choose the frame with maximum exposure that represents the scene without clipping the important bright element, and work with that one to best render shadow detail.  That's your test frame.

Then repeat the process for the other camera and compare your best images.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 10:03:49 AM »
Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:49:12 AM »

Then do as I do and stop buying new Canon cameras until they fix it.

And also stop recommending Canon cameras to others too.

Should Nikon and Sony owners stop buying new editions of those brands until they fix their auto-focus?  An out-of-focus shot is useless, regardless of IQ.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:05:55 AM »
Dude, what was I saying just yesterday? Two wrongs make a right? Lowering the standard is the reason to be here?

Just tell us your opinion of the gear, and better yet back it up with examples or illustrations, we like pictures, and leave the counter antagonism in Aus. Your opinions of another poster are what got you in trouble last time, nobody cares about your opinions of other posters, we do care about well reasoned and illustrated points about gear.

Pointing out that constant sarcasm is tiresome is an issue, but the ridiculous sarcasm itself isn't?

Ok.

Neuro is a contradiction.  I don't know how long you you've been lurking at CR before you started posting, but you can see quite a bit of dynamic range from him.  I've seen him be extremely generous with his time and experience, patiently explaining concepts and gear to newbs and Luddites.  And I've seen him misunderstand a post and set off a snark bomb.  He's probably a nice guy in-person.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:53:54 AM »
To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate.

<snip>

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene.

I'll grant that it hasn't met scientific standards, and I'd like to see the side-by-side you describe.  My opinion that jrista's examples were reasonable was based on two criteria: my personal experience with my 60D (I'm aware it's not Canon's best) and jrista's history of being careful about his assertions.  I.e., he's earned the benefit of my initial trust (as if he cares), though I would be pleased to see scientifically valid tests to support the assertion.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:48:53 PM »
I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body. 
There is an assumption I shoot at ISO 100 all the time, but that's rubbish.

I shoot at 1600 regularly and with the D800/810, when I shoot window backlit portraits, I can expose for the highlights, and let the face fall in exposure and lift it later with no read noise.

Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can chime in, but my understanding is that the effects of read noise diminish as ISOs go up.  I've read (can't recall where) that lifting shadows becomes roughly equal between D8x0 and 5D3 somewhere between ISO800 and ISO1600.

Again, this is not my personal experience, and I can't cite you a source.  If you have access to both cameras maybe you could post side-by-side samples at ISO1600.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:04:39 PM »
Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.  I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate.  We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good.  I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

Or forest scenes, it's sooo easy with sunbeams entering forests to reach high DR scenarios and filters are useless since things are so complicated, you surely can't light the scene, and often branches are constantly swaying so multi-exposure isn't always in the mix. Or say post storms like where you have areas in shadows and others with the sun blasting out rays and the mists are swirling all over, pretty amazing, but very hard to manage without a ton of DR.

Yes, but still need to be a bit careful: first, the DR advantage is only at low ISO.  Second, many forest/sunbeam/post-storm scenes have significantly more DR than a D8x0 can handle, too.  More DR is always better, but more of anything has a cost.

Quote
Sure you can shoot an infinite number of amazing shots with the older sensors. But all the same why fight so hard to not get the chance to be able to better shoot a ton more types of scenes that you need to skip or struggle with? Some people like shooting that kind of stuff and run across it often enough. And even for simple exposure mistakes, who hasn't had some out of the blue shoot come up and you have a one shot chance and no time to adjust settings, etc. why fight to not get a sensor that always you to deal with that? The only people that does any good are a few big Canon stock holders and the pockets of some major players at Canon.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this.  What frustrates me with the DR advocates is that low-ISO DR is often presented as the single, overriding factor in determining the worth of a DSLR body.  As you say, there may be times you don't have a chance to adjust settings; if the subject is a moving animal then AF is more important than DR.  The key is to buy the gear that most closely matches your needs and your budget.

12
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:22:44 AM »
Not the most impressive shot in the world, but anyway...

I like the shot.  Maybe a little more crop, and a little less sharpening: when I look closely at the bird it almost appears fauxtoshopped on top of the background, and I wonder if that's due to sharpening.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:18:21 AM »
Nobody's denying that the Sony sensors test better in "edge case" circumstances - and it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that we're saying anything to the contrary.

(Even though you'll notice the striking lack of Real World examples out there of images that only a Nikon/Sony camera - and definitely not a Canon camera - could produce. That's significant, don't you think?)

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.  I've had trouble with both of those kinds of shots and, while there are ways to adapt to the situations, such as choosing time of day for minimal DR, his point is still valid: if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

This harkens back to discussions on auto-focus and frame rate.  We can focus manually, and we can time the shot correctly the first time to get excellent results; however, good AF and high frame rate will increase the range of circumstances where the chance of success is good.  I definitely want better low ISO DR to find its way into Canon's cameras, but it's not enough to make me sell my gear and buy Nikon.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 09:00:17 AM »
I simply corrected some very inaccurate statements regarding the cameras in question.

jakey, I'll give you some advice I gave another guy who was very ardent about his ideas.  Most of the people on this board are intelligent, reasonable people, who are willing to have their minds changed.  This includes several on this thread whose histories I recognize.  You haven't done a good job persuading them.  That doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that your arguments and style of presentation have not been persuasive, so maybe you should try presenting in a different way.

Bear in mind that there are a lot of different kinds of "pros" on this forum, including photographers with decades of experience, working artists, engineers, academic scientists, etc.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 06:26:23 PM »
What I am convinced will happen (although it may take more than a decade to perfect) is the "light field" focusing-after-the-shot technology.

Frankly, I've got really mixed emotions about this. After all, wouldn't we all want to be able to know that that Eagle that we shot catching a fish would be perfectly in focus every time? On the other hand, will this suck all the fun out of photography if EVERY shot you take is perfectly focused and you can change the focus to anything in the picture?

What if anyone in the stands can shoot a picture of the winning touchdown pass and get it perfectly in focus, every single time?

And what about wedding photographers? Imagine all the classic shots (exchanging rings, throwing the bouquet, feeding each other cake, etc.) able to refocus and shift the focus at will.

Page after page of people anguishing over sensors and dynamic range when the biggest, baddest industry disrupting technology is sneaking up behind us.

This doesn't worry me a lot, in part because I don't earn a living with photography.  I suppose film photographers of yore could have fretted about what would happen if fancy darkrooms and chemicals weren't needed -- why then everyone could be a photographer!!  There are people now who specialize in post-processing: Photoshop all day long.  There's creativity there.  There's also the choice of subject, POV, etc.  Video and lightfield will take the timing and focus elements out of it.  Those who care enough to develop their aesthetic sense and skills will still rise above the masses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 45