September 23, 2014, 04:54:28 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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 127
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 07:49:51 AM »
I'm talking about normalized Raw performance, which has seen very, very small gains. Save for at the highest ISOs (e.g. 25.6k and above), where lowering sensor-level (upstream) read noise actually affects image quality, since you're amplifying the raw signal off the sensor so much (b/c the signal is so, so small).

Otherwise, ISO performance is largely dictated by sensor size these days.

If you are referring to low ISO I wouldn't agree. The 5DII had substantially more latitude that's the original 5D at the highlight end, even if the actually DR wasn't greatly different. Likewise the mkIII has substantially more latitude than the II, and the 6D a tad more again. Tonal graduation has also improved, as well as highlight headroom in terms of clipping to white, as well as at the other end in graduation to black.

OK so this might only be noticeable to the discerning user.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: Today at 01:35:55 AM »
I can appreciate that, but that doesn't mean you are not compromising by using it at f/1.4. Knowing what those compromises is important.
Your example is poor, perhaps if you had started with a different lens in a different situation you could demonstrate your point.

I knew of that compromise. What is hard to predict ahead of time - you know me not being a computer and all - is exactly where I'd run into the noise floor.

And that's what's so nice about Exmor - you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things, like focus, or capturing the decisive moment.

My example is not poor, it's just irrelevant to you. I've posted examples of other use-cases, and gotten answers like 'well I don't shoot that high DR scene', or 'you could've just used a GND', or 'oh you already used a GND? well you could've HDR'd it then'...

My point here is that you can always have an answer as to how you could've done it differently.

Doesn't detract from the main point: this is one less thing I have to worry about now.

These same arguments are constantly recycled. The same sentiments were thrown around during the digital vs. film debate.

As for sharing the whole file - no point. I did years ago when I showed this same problem with fixing vignetting with the 24/1.4 on my then newly acquired 5D3. And it was the same thing. Some people got it and agreed it was unfortunate, others said I should've used a flash or just accepted the vignetting, etc. And all those comments still missed the main point - I wanted available light only for that shot, and I generally don't mind vignetting but for that particular shot I didn't care for it. But I didn't have the choice to take out the vignetting, b/c of the ugly banding that ensued.

There's really no point - I just saw jrista arguing thread after thread about how he'd like to simplify his workflow by not having to resort to HDR every single time. It's the same argument here - I'd like to not be so constrained by my system when there are better options out there.

I didn't consider Nikon to be a better option until enough factors swayed me. Like not designing the grip for elf hands, for example (that ones for you, jrista).

You can certainly talk the talk, but after all this typing and in put from others I don't see this can continue until you post the full, original image as many of us have requested. Mask the faces if necessary as suggested by PBD. You've made all sorts of allegations against the 5DIII not coping with the situation: let's see the full picture.

Canon General / Re: Gets the Job Done....Every Time
« on: September 22, 2014, 04:54:51 PM »
Always interesting to hear from people who have real, practical experience with the different systems, rather than those who fantasise over what they think a different system can do to improve their photography.

I must admit I'm a bit of a Fuji fan myself, but having learnt over the years that multiple systems are, to me, a distraction from making real images, I now religiously just stick to one, other than trying out the opposition now and again to keep myself up to date.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:21:31 AM »
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image

Maybe you should learn to convert and process your files properly.

I always thought wedding photographers make use of reflectors to avoid such classic lighting problems? That was what my wedding photographer did to get a beautifully exposed shot with the sunburst and blue sky behind us. Oh, he was using the Canon 5D classic.

Oh, here is another example: Matt has mostly Nikon gear.  ;)

You are absolutely right, except that generally those here suggesting the Exmor tech can do a better job don't want to be bothered with fill, they want to be able to use every ounce of the extensive latitude in the Nikon file.

They will of course will be lifting data that has recorded virtually no light, so the photographer using 'old' tech such as a 5D or D200 and sound technique will produce a much higher quality image.

So what happens if you use sound technique with both Canon and Nikon ? You get pretty much the same image. A well lit and correctly exposed image will always triumph over the same one which has been poorly lit and under exposed.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:21:49 AM »
Bald Eagle in Alaska - 5DIII + Tamron 150-600.

Beautiful light. Adds a certain surreal dimension to it :)

+1', really like this.

Thanks ecka for your reply. I must admit I don't really get it. What I don't understand is that a given lens produces an in focus image circle and either a crop or FF sensor is "placed" in that circle, albeit with different numbers/size of pixels and the 2 images are very different. The fact that the 2 sensors are a different size appears irrelevant. The FF will cover more of the image circle than the crop sensor.

Can anyone give me a structured/scientific explanation as to what's happening please... thanks...

Basically the smaller the sensor ( or film ) format, the smaller the magnification at capture ( shorter focal length lens, smaller format) and the greater the magnification required to view = loss of quality.

EOS Bodies / Re: Am I the only one excited about the new 7D mk2?
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:15:12 AM »
So its no great secret i'm not the worlds biggest fan of crop sensors...

but the EOS-M is a great little camera to support my 5Dmk3 for various things and means no lens changing

so looking at the specs of the 7D2 I am actually pretty excited about this
well not excited enough to buy it bleeding edge but say in a year or so when prices drop and bargains are around or sales i am definately interested in picking one up to use on my tamron 150-600

I have pretty high expectations for the new AF system given how great the 5Dmk3 and 1DX AF systems are

but all I read are posts about people crying that its not what they wanted.

so anyone else excited about the potential for this new camera?

I am too. Although I've been in FF since 2005 I acknowledge that in many - (the majority ?) of circumstances there is no perceivable difference with APS, and the 7DII looks like really good value as a smart little action camera.

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 07:03:03 AM »
This entire thread is hilarious.

Conflating the needs of the masses as reflected in the sales figures with the needs of enthusiasts and pros - a completely disparate population.

Controlling for nothing, like brand name, education level, etc.

Therefore none of these numbers should be drawn into *any* conversations re: technologies that (1) enthusiasts/pros care about, (2) said technologies that don't have much impact on market share, (3) said technologies that *could* help even laypeople but since the use-cases are not communicated well enough to be ever used, end up being irrelevant to even those use-cases (a failure of many of you here, but mostly of the review/educational sites around the world).

But all that doesn't mean that those new technologies couldn't be used in groundbreaking ways, amongst many people, if iterated on and then taught appropriately.

And honestly, being on here for years, that whole 'teaching part' is never going to happen here. B/c everyone else is far too holed up in their own ways to even consider that someone else coming along might, just might, have a point.

So we're literally back to the same level of conversation I noticed when I participated in these forums 3 years ago. The entire reason I left. Great to see nothing's changed!

Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.

Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:

I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).

And that's not even talking about some of the other differentiators that differentiate the low end Rebel from Nikon's Rebel competitor: for example, Nikon's Rebel competitor has 39 AF points that can accurate subject track, even detect a face (even when you're using the OVF), and focus on and track it. Will work for your kids playing sports or for your dog running around.

Rebel - can only focus on whatever's the nearest subject it can find within its 9 AF points. Good luck tracking it with those 9 points, especially if something else enters the scene at a similar plane as your kid/pet.

If even that crowd buys Rebels predominantly, then what's the point of this entire conversation? Other than that: brand names persist. Because of word of mouth. From people like you.

Would you be prepared to share with us the whole uncropped image and the raw file ?

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:21:34 AM »

You guys are so vehemently against anyone saying anything negative about Canon that you readily stoop to twisting peoples words, or handily assuming they said something other than they did, then repeating those assumptions as though they are fact. I'm a Canon fan myself, I'm just sick and tired of their nasty crappy read noise. I literally cannot wait for Canon to produce a better sensor (something I believe they are more than capable of doing)...I really want them to improve their sensor IQ, but I'm done waiting.

jrista, for what it´s worth, I totally agree! Canon is behind and they should take us more seriously. I have never understood the enormous urge some have to defend Canon for their sensor quality. We should stand shoulder to shoulder and make sure Canon is aware of what we think.

It is like someone defending his old, slow, unstable, back wheel drive, 3 speed, monster V8, with 10 miles/gallon, no sound proofing and a rotten air-condition, against a fast, 4-wheel drive, 8 speed, hybrid, quiet car, with climate zones and 60 miles/gallon, because it is flat where I live and fuel is cheap and I don´t want to be caught speeding and the roads are pretty straight and it never gets really hot ...

IF Canon had delivered the D800 sensor performance and not Nikon. I am confident that we would have seen loads of posts here, praising Canon for the sensor performance and ridiculing the poor sods in the Nikon camp.

I was inches away from getting the Pentax 645z this summer. I didn´t, for three reasons. I was (unrealistically) hoping for a d810 basher at Photokina, I am a bit skeptical to the Pentax lens lineup and I don´t want to carry more equipment on a trip. But my patience is running thin.

That is not an appropriate analogy. The 'defence' of the current Canon sensors only begins when someone claims that the Exmor has basically made the Canon redundant overnight, and that the Canon is 'only suitable for landscapes up to 10x8', or 'posting on Facebook', or 'noise / banding is so bad I can't use the camera'.

In normal use, at low ISO, there is simply no difference. In the scheme of things very few people want to lift shadows by three stops. In fact I would go so far as the say the tonal graduation on the 1Dx is probably better. Certainly within the professional business of photography in which I deal the general concessus was that in the days of the D3x Nikon had the edge on pure 'IQ'. Opinion has generally changed since the arrival of the 1Dx.

If you are looking to realise more image quality than can be produced by your 1Dx I would strongly advise looking at the Pentax 645z rather than a D810. I wouldn't worry too much on the lenses because once you own the camera you will establish when and where you use it and I think you will find the lenses are OK. Also you could adapt the many Pentax 67 lenses, though don't expect ultra sharp images.

EOS Bodies / Re: Official: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 20, 2014, 01:57:47 PM »
Lee Jay I can't imagine having a cellphone for 7 years!  :o  so curious, what kind is it??

All of them I've ever had, several brands.  I'm only 2 years into my Galaxy S3 at the moment.  Haven't considered upgrading.

I live in Colorado too, the "big landscape state".  I think I've taken about 5 landscapes in my life, and only one of them in Colorado.  That was a big panorama taken with a state of the art camera, a Nikon Coolpix 950!

Different circles then. There are many well known landscape photographers who live in this state. One in particular is exceptionally well known, John Fielder. This IS a big landscape state, and people DO spend a lot of time taking landscape photos here. Go hiking up in the highlands above the Maroon Bells, or in the Uncomphagre wilderness, or San Juan range, and you'll see a ton of people with DSLRs.

I think your less a representative of "the norm" than you might think. ;)

You do realise that John Fielder uses Canon I presume ?

EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 20, 2014, 07:33:33 AM »
as I was pre-ordering my 7d2 today, (uh-hmmm...  cough..) my LCS guy said pre-orders for the 7d2 vs the d750 were running about 15-to-1.
Holy cow!  much more pent up demand hoping for a large improvement over the old 7d than any craving for a new FF Nik body is my interpretation, especially when there's already 2 good options in the 800 and 600 series that many are likely already satisfied with. 
You could spin that as too many FF nik bodies available.. or, quite possibly, a lot of people wanting a better Canon crop body that they will finally get.

I'm not at all surprised about a 15-1 ratio between a good, new APS camera and the same FF.  Look at the on cost with building a FF system compared with smaller format. OK, many people revel in this, some really need it, but at the end of the day there is going to be a lot more cost to produce images that are generally indistinguishable from one another, most of the time.

IMO Nikon are going to be heading down the wrong path again if they put their emphasis on FF cameras at the expense of cheaper, better value APS, especially as time is moving on and those who have used film are going to be less in number, and so the format size will generally have less impact on the buying decision for many.

EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 19, 2014, 03:06:38 PM »
and I got sidewinded (if that is the correct word)

I think you mean sidetracked. I could get sidetracked from my FF cameras too.......the 7DII looks like very good value compared with the FF cameras.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 02:59:56 PM »
Sharpening is just an example of one of the extra things you often have to do with Canon files. One of many. In the situations where my 5D III is at it's worst, the workload involves a lot more than just sharpening..........

You see absolutely no difference between cameras of vastly differing IQ capabilities.

What if the photographer doesn't want 'brittle', 'digital' images ? Many of those pictures you have linked to on 500px will have had, as part of the extensive post processing, a Gaussian blur applied. More workload as you put it.

In the vast majority of photographic applications there is no case of 'vastly differing IQ capabilities. That's the whole point.

But for someone who wants to view brittle images which have been under exposed by three stops on a good quality monitor at 100% the D810 fits the bill nicely.

EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:35:59 AM »
And what were those comments about Canon's sensor technology, generations et al.........?

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:07:52 PM »
Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

"Large difference in detail" #1

"Large difference in detail" #2

"Large difference in detail" #2

All images: left 5D mark III, right Nikon D810, DPReview studio scene RAW files at ISO 100 / NR0 converted using ACR standard settings. 5D3 file was resized to match (Bicubic Sharper) and then had light sharpening applied. I encourage everyone to download test files such as these and try them for yourself.

At best one can say tiny high contrast details are rendered a little better at pixel peeping sizes, and the D810 will sometimes pick up light, small patterns or textures missed on the 5D3. Shown at 50% on a 96 ppi monitor (i.e. 25x40" print) this stuff would be invisible. In print it would be invisible without a loupe.

We are well into diminishing returns for small format. People talk endlessly about AA filters and 22/24 vs. 36 MP yet they hardly matter at all even when pixel peeping tripod mounted shots made with primes at optimum apertures. Subject lighting, lens, technique, post processing, each 1,000x more important to fine detail and sharpness. I hope when Canon releases a high MP body they A) don't charge 1D prices, and B) shoot past 50 MP even if high ISO suffers. Because at this point I'm wondering if even >50 MP would yield truly significant differences in print without also jumping to a MF sized sensor.

This, btw, is why I'm going with the Sony A7 over the A7R. I see the exact same thing there. I would rather have electronic first curtain shutter, the phase detect points, and the extra cash in my pocket for lenses.

I think this is why we haven't seen a 'very high' mp FF sensor from Canon yet. Once you go beyond a certain level of potential resolution the format becomes the restriction in the sense of the magnification (focal length of lens) that you have to use pro rata, the size of image capture and then the magnification required to view the image. So smaller format equals shorter focal length (less magnification) equals smaller capture equals greater magnification to view.

This is why the 'large FF mp' camera doesn't excite me very much.

Incidentally this is why ( excluding dof, low light etc etc) you just can't tell the difference in a (moderately enlarged) image from APS against FF when the subject is close to you and filling the frame, but you can when the subject detail is much further away, ie landscapes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 127