July 29, 2014, 05:25:25 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 897
1
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: Today at 04:11:33 PM »
I'm a long time reader, first time poster, but I have to address Neuro here.

Welcome to the Forums.  I have to say, I find your characterization of me to be rather rude and offensive.  You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion...but it's unfortunate that your opinion is apparently based on comments by the likes of dilbert, rather than my own posts.

Can you find a post where I claim that Canon sensors deliver better low ISO dynamic range than Nikon/Sony sensors? No, because the opposite is true, as I've stated more times than I can count.  I've also lost count of the times I've stated that if I were primarily a landscape shooter, I'd be using a D800E and 14-24/2.8G.

The issue at hand is that for you, like most people, everything is colored by your personal viewpoint and experience.  For example, I say DxO's Scores are biased, but you say they back up your experience.  Given your statement, "I am not a high ISO shooter," perhaps you don't see the bias inherent in their Scores...because that bias favors your shooting needs.  How is that 'open minded'? 

...but please, can we have some debate that actually understands what DR is...

Ok, but you'll have to excuse yourself from that debate.  When you make statements like, "With over 14 stops at 100 ISO (14.8 at 32ISO on the D810 it would appear)," you demonstrate that your understanding of the relevant technical issues is quite poor.  The D810 has a 14-bit ADC, it is not capable of recording over 14-stops of DR in a RAW image.  DxO's 'Landscape Score' of 14.8-stops of DR results from a mathematical simulation of downsampling that 36 MP image to 8 MP.  If you go out and meter a scene that shows a 15-stop difference from darkest to brightest, and take one image with your D810, you'll lose 1.25-stops of some combination of shadows/highlights, depending on your exposure.  That's at low ISO...once you get above ISO 800, the D800/810 DR advantage evaporates.

I don't believe in the concept of "pure IQ" – I believe in taking pictures.  A better sensor coupled with a worse lens does not make for a better picture.  A sensor with 20-stops of DR coupled to a 600mm f/4 lens that I cannot handhold would not adequately meet my needs. 

Everyone's needs are different.  Aglet needs to shoot images (sometimes with the lens cap on) and push the files 4-5 stops in post.  It's rare that I need to push an image more than 1 stop, and I don't think I've ever needed to push an image more than 2-3 stops (in those rare cases when I completely screw up the exposure).

The problem I have is when people assume their needs represent the needs of the majority, and what they find to be a limitation is universally applicable. 

If the D800/810 meet your needs better than your Canon gear did, then switching was the right decision and good for you.  You didn't like the 5DIII?  That's fine.   

The D800/810 sensors have better low ISO DR than any Canon sensor.  But...people don't buy bare silicon sensors, they buy cameras.  I believe the 5DIII is a better 'all around' camera, and the sales figures are consistent with that belief.  More people chose to buy 5DIII's than D800/E's, just as more people have chosen Canon dSLRs over Nikon dSLRs for at least the past 10 years.  That's objective reality.  Does it mean Canon is 'better'?  No...only that Canon is chosen by more people to better meet their needs. 

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: Today at 12:34:31 PM »
(3) DO elements create onion ring bokeh, but that's ok because bokeh is totally unimportant in macro shooting.

Neuro, I probably miss the meaning of the ::) smiley

All three of those points were facetious.  I often forget my </sarcasm> tags...   :)

3
... I don't know why people are so fussed about it?  ???

People who understand how lighting works just recognize it for what it is - a gimmick.  It's like paying $200 for a pair of fuzzy dice to hang from your car mirror – they may look cool and give you something to fiddle with when you probably should be doing something more important, but they don't do anything for the performance of your 'sweet ride'.


And closeness or distance from the source to the subject.

Quote
Since light softness is proportional to the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject)

An object closer to you appears larger than the same object further away.  So, distance is part of, "...the apparent size of the light source (relative to the subject)." 

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon EF 180mm f/3.5 DO Macro
« on: July 28, 2014, 10:19:57 PM »
What better lens to upgrade with a DO version than the long-in-the-tooth Canon EF 180 f/3.5L Macro?

Indeed, because (1) the current 180L is way too big, (2) DO elements dramatically reduce lateral CA, which is just horrible on the current 180L, and (3) DO elements create onion ring bokeh, but that's ok because bokeh is totally unimportant in macro shooting.

 ::)

5
Software & Accessories / Re: Reikan Focal Target Setup - Help Please
« on: July 28, 2014, 08:58:42 PM »
Next is the 400mm but I can only get to about 60'. Will that be good? It is certainly beween the 25x and 50x (45.72x).

That will be fine.

6
Software & Accessories / Re: Reikan Focal Target Setup - Help Please
« on: July 28, 2014, 07:14:46 PM »
How far is the camera from the target at each FL?

7
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 28, 2014, 06:46:45 PM »
This is kinda schisophrenic, to put some of settings in manual mode to auto mode, and then still with manual mode wanting other settings to compensate for this mixture. You really don´t know what you want, right?
You can do what you want in AV or TV modes. With manual, you are in charge, you have nothing to compensate, and if they allowed some glitch or stupid customers request of auto ISO at manual mode, than it will be everything messed up.

Couldn't disagree more.  M mode with Auto ISO is like aperture and shutter priority.  I select the DoF I need and the necessary shutter speed to stop (or show) motion, and I get a metered exposure in rapidly changing light.  Being able to apply EC to bias the metering is plus.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:41:18 PM »
Also, WB is only one part of the WB control, Tint is the other.

When I shoot tethered I can do an in camera custom WB and it looks good, if I then go into DPP whilst tethered I can re WB that image with the additional Tint control and it shifts, sometimes quite a lot.

But the tint issue in AWB is one I never really did get my head around, if WB just does blue to yellow, then tint, with green to magenta, is every bit as important, particularly for things like stadium gas lights and fluorescent lamps and the multitude of colours they now come in.

Yes, tint is important.  The in-camera Auto WB applies both a color temperature and a tint value.  For example, an image open in DxO on my desktop right now and taken in mixed lighting (tungsten with daylight from a large window) shows As Shot values of 4298 K for the temperature and –27 for the tint (a bit green-shifted, the slider runs from –100 green to +100 magenta).

As far as I can tell, Canon's DPP doesn't show the tint value for RAW images or allow you to edit it...but it's recorded as part of the AWB saved in the RAW metadata.  RAW converters that are more functional than DPP allow you to view and adjust the tint as well as the color temperature.  Just one more reason I don't like DPP...

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:06:06 PM »
I know WB is supposed to give you "true", even valued, white black and gray tones, but there is no doubt that in camera it doesn't, all my AWB tungsten shots have an orange colour, and I am happy with that...

AWB, like auto exposure, kinda seems to put you in the ball park most of the time, but it doesn't actually know what you are trying to do as a photographer.

Exactly.  Well, almost - orange really isn't in the ballpark with white, it's somewhere in the next town over.  I sometimes leave indoor shots a bit warmer than neutral, but I don't like them orange.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 02:32:09 PM »
I'm wondering what the light source was, if it was fluorescent, that might be the issue.

Still an AWB issue, though.  It's not a shutter speed vs. light cycle frequency issue, since 1/60 s would encompass a full cycle. 

But...1/60 s isn't always enough to fully eliminate the blur from random motion of even a 'posed' subject, so that could be a factor.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 02:24:55 PM »
As for the AWB result, what colour was the light? If it was tungsten then the Canon is a more accurate representation of the actual colour of the scene, the NIkon has removed the colour, take your pick.

Sorry, but it's auto white balance – the idea is to render a white/neutral object in the scene as white/neutral in the image, not to render it as 'the actual color of the scene'.  Under tungsten light, AWB on most Canon bodies will render a white object as orange.  That's a WB fail (even if it's by Canon's design - they should put that tweak into a Picture Style, not AWB).

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 01:08:57 PM »
Aside from the WB, what you're seeing is due to comparing a very good lens to a mediocre lens.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is there something wrong with my 5D Mark III?
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:42:26 PM »
You've demonstrated that Nikon's 85/1.4, which is among Nikon's very best performing lenses even wide open, is sharper than Canon's 50/1.4, which is not a particularly sharp lens, particularly wide open.  You make no mention of performing an AF microadjustment/fine tune, which can be critical for sharpness with fast primes shot wide open.

You've demonstrated that Canon's AWB is poor...something most of us know already (although it's better on the 1D X than any other Canon camera I've used).

I'm not convinced you've learned anything beyond the obvious...

14
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 28, 2014, 12:08:20 PM »
Recent bodies, I believe including the 70D (not certain) have a functional Auto ISO in M mode (although only the 1D X allows EC in that case).  I expect the 7DII will have it as well.

15
Your numerical list has them in descending order of image quality. 

I sold my 200/2.8L II after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and although I have both the 135/2L and the 1.4xIII, I don't use them together.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 897