March 01, 2015, 11:02:55 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 - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58
Well, you can also look at it this way:
21% is the difference in the number of stops. However, because DR is an exponential function, where each stop doubles the dynamic range, a difference of 2 stops essentially means 400% wider DR :).

That may be true in terms of the light energy striking the sensor, but it's not how the human eye interprets it. Most people would be hard pressed to even detect a 1 stop DR difference on the shadow side with two prints side by side. (Seriously.)

Well, well and yet then what of those who keep saying that Exmor is not worth it because, in a few cases, you give up 1/4 to 1/2 stop DR at high ISO to get the extra 3 stops at low ISO.  ;D

They are being silly.

For the record even though I threw those percentages at you, I imagine the resolution difference between the A7r and new 50 MP 5D bodies will be close to inconsequential.

Well, you can also look at it this way:
21% is the difference in the number of stops. However, because DR is an exponential function, where each stop doubles the dynamic range, a difference of 2 stops essentially means 400% wider DR :).

That may be true in terms of the light energy striking the sensor, but it's not how the human eye interprets it. Most people would be hard pressed to even detect a 1 stop DR difference on the shadow side with two prints side by side. (Seriously.)

The thing is you can get an adapted Sony that will offer a lot more dynamic range and only modestly less resolution for a ton less money.

DR difference = 21%

Resolution difference = 38%


Personally it's clear nothing anyone says matters and they are, as I feared back in 2007, just lost the plot totally, all this talk about kings of the hill who saw no need to do anything.

You really think DR debates and DRoning are the norm? I have two friends who shoot pro FF Nikon equipment. The DR difference between Canon and Nikon has never come up between us. In fact, I showed one some of my processing tricks because he commented about how impressed he was with the range I pulled in a few landscape shots from single frames using the original crop 7D. Put another way: I was getting more range initially then he was from his FF Nikon.

The difference is simply not apparent in daily use unless you completely blow the exposure. Your skill level matters more. Sorry, but that's reality.

UNless people boycott any further Canon purchases you'll be stuck with the same old sensor quality for probably another 10-15 years at least.

APS-C with usable ISO 16,000
FF 50 MP sensor
"same old sensor quality"

Nothing but a total sales failure for this will make any difference.

If you think these new 5D's are going to be sales failures then you are dreaming.

Does he have any explanation why since the 5Ds is not video oriented and didn't need any of Canon's custom video bits and didn't even get DPAF even, why they stuck with a Canon sensor for this? It is not a speed demon and not a video demon so how exactly is this following the claim of Maesada that they will use the best sensor for each camera regardless of who makes it???

Make a DSLR focused on video, someone will complain they want an ultimate stills camera. Make a DSLR focused on stills, someone will complain it's not the ultimate video camera  ::)

This is Canon's studio, landscape, and other assorted high resolution needs camera. Just like the 7D mark II is their crop 'mini-1DX' sports and wildlife camera. I imagine their video-oriented 4k DSLRs are still coming. (Probably the 5D4 since high quality video has overlap with high ISO and weddings.)

What did using a Canon sensor gain them here?? The only things I can see is a larger profit margin per copy by a little bit and the, fleeting, ability to crow that they released a 50MP camera first (never mind the quality of it is worse than Exmor

Well, no, the resolution is better then Exmor's current best. And there were rumors that Canon put work into the CFA for more accurate colors, something they are already better at then Exmor.

But I see this is about to turn into a "DR is everything" type post.

...and that I'd bet many a landscape shooter would rather more stops of DR than just 14 extra MP over a 36MP Exmor sensor or some deal they could make with Aptina or whoever).

No, but many underexposed bedroom corner shooters would for sure. I think Canon has completely lost that market  ;D

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 Specifications
« on: February 05, 2015, 11:10:21 PM »
We'll see how it's priced and how well it sells.

DPReview is quoting no North America release and 769.99 Euros ($881 USD). LOL no. It looks like a nice body but what is Canon thinking? Your budget is within striking distance of an A7 at that point.

Whoever is managing Canon's mirrorless division needs to be fired.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 Specifications
« on: February 05, 2015, 10:57:57 PM »
Hmmm...not sure what to think of this. At the right price this looks like a nice camera if the AF is improved. But it does not solve the system complaints: lack of lenses and lack of various body options. (It helps the second point, but does not solve it.)

We'll see how it's priced and how well it sells.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Samsung NX-1 Epic Shootout
« on: January 19, 2015, 09:21:14 PM »
Nice review.  I was disappointed to see the Samsung, even with its BSI sensor, do worse at high ISO noise even compared to Canon's crop sensor.

You say that as if Canon's crop sensor is poor at high ISO. The 7D2 is clearly at the top of the APS-C list right now, the 70D is quite good, and even the current 18 MP cameras aren't bad.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM Lens Review
« on: January 18, 2015, 09:26:51 AM »
The MTF Chart in this review indicates that the lens ist still "excellent" at f8 and f11 but I still find that odd. Often people stop down to f8 or f11 to increase depth of field so if sharpness decreases after f5.6 ...

If the lens is diffraction limited then the sharpness at those apertures would be no worse then any other lens, and quite likely better.

A lens that improves as it's stopped down a bit is fighting diffraction and lens aberrations. The best it can do is hit an aperture setting where the aberrations become insignificant and the sharpness/resolution is bound by the 400 DO II appears to be at any aperture.

Put another way you're not losing anything at f/8 or f/ are gaining something at f/4.

Lenses / Re: Why not uppdate just the IS
« on: January 17, 2015, 11:36:44 PM »

Based on what? The old adage that primes are always better then zooms hasn't been true in years thanks to modern lens design and manufacturing. The 100-400 II was a significant update and no primes blow it away now.

Are you sure?

Quite sure on both statements.

Yes, some of the new zooms are better than the old primes, but given the same technology and materials the prime will always be better than the zoom.

A prime cannot be better then a diffraction limited zoom. And yes, someday soon we will start to see diffraction limited primes and zooms for small format. (A few such lenses exist for medium format.)

We're not at that point yet in small format lenses. But as we approach that point we see diminishing returns in IQ gains. Improved tech benefits the zooms more then the primes and closes the gap. This is exactly what we're seeing as Canon (and others) update their lenses.

The prime will have less elements, and that means less transmissive loss and less surfaces for reflection.

Given modern coatings this is rarely, if ever, human observable.

The prime will not have to worry about alignment of the zoom mechanism.

Given the complexity of any lens design which approaches diffraction limited IQ this is a non-issue. Either will have very complex alignment and manufacturing tolerances. I don't think there's a white tele shipping today with less then a dozen elements.

The prime will be mechanically superior.

How so?

Look at the two MTF charts.... which one is for a brand new "state of the art" zoom, and which one is for a couple of years old prime?

Did you bother to look at test shots for each? The differences are smaller then your post processing choices. While the prime is better, it does not by any stretch of the imagination "blow away" the zoom.

The prime is amazing in that there's not much IQ difference between f/2.8 and f/5.6 where the zoom starts at f/5.6. But I highly doubt you could tell unlabeled prints from these lenses apart.

Some background: with small format if I can clearly see a difference in unlabeled 24" prints I consider it significant. If I can only see it in 36" prints then I consider it minor. If I can't reliably detect the difference in unlabeled 36" prints then I consider it "tiny" and inconsequential no matter what it looks like on a graph or when pixel peeping B&W line charts.

"Unlabeled" is key because human psychology being what it is we will perceive one to be better if we expect it to be. I don't mean to say that someone will lie because they want their lens/camera/wine/whatever to win. Your personal experience of A will literally be better if you expect, or are told, that A is better then B before the test. Take away the labels and the results are often surprising.

I believe you would be very hard pressed to detect any of the lenses we're discussing given 36" prints of real world scenes, especially if they have been processed.

Lenses / Re: Why not uppdate just the IS
« on: January 17, 2015, 11:07:06 PM »
I also took stock of DTP to gauge the sharpness and you seem to agree that the 300L IS looks no sharper than the new 100-400L IS. To me that is unconvincing performance.

Then the 100-400 mark II, yes. It's quite a bit sharper then the mark I.

What was "excellent" prime performance yesterday is not "excellent" when new tech produces ever better lenses.

The mark II isn't better, though it pulls even. You're assuming that for a given level of lens design/manufacturing tech that primes should always be much better then zooms. That's a false assumption.

None of Canon's primes, not even their most expensive and newest mark II super telephotos, are significantly sharper then the 300 f/4L IS OR the 100-400 mark II. Their most recent L zooms...the 70-300L, 100-400 II, and the latest 70-200L variants...quite dramatically closed the gap on all of their primes vs. the situation we had just a decade ago.

The same is true even for the Sigma ART and Zeiss Otus primes. Sharper then the L zooms? Yes. But by small amounts.

The way you described the 300 f/4L IS someone might think it's mediocre and that a new version would be dramatically better. Old design or not, it's one of the sharper lenses in existence, and you have to look at the very best primes made to find even a slight improvement. At the level we're debating IQ gains are very small and very, very expensive.

That does not mean your 300IS L takes any lesser pictures than yesterday. But it shows that an upgrade could be even better. Why be troubled by that?

The gain seen in the 100-400 II does not mean an updated 300 f/4L IS would be much better. A perfect lens is diffraction limited wide open. If you look at the 300 f/2.8L II it's roughly one stop away from that right now. f/4 is better then f/2.8 (barely). There's no gain at f/5.6, and f/8 sees degradation. I don't expect a new 300 f/4L would do any better then this, and this is a relatively small gain in IQ vs. the current f/4L IS.

2) 70-300L IS II (which I also have) is only OK and cannot compare with the 300mm L IS

"Only OK?"  ::)

The edges are better on the primes, with mid-frame and center being only very slightly better (f/4L or f/2.8L II). But the high contrast TDP charts emphasize any differences. Given a real scene...good post processing would be hard pressed to pick unlabeled prints from one or the other.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't pick one of the primes. Aperture is aperture and even a single stop can be huge. But we are splitting hairs when debating the IQ of any of these lenses. EF-S 55-250 STM vs. one of the 300L primes...THERE'S a big difference, easily print visible, no post processing away that. 70-300L vs. one of the 300 primes? Eh...the Ferrari does 185 mph, the Porsche does 187 mph, either one will get you a nasty ticket  ;)

Lenses / Re: Why not uppdate just the IS
« on: January 17, 2015, 10:39:52 AM »
From what I have seen it has a hard time matching the new 100-400mm IS L II for sharpness.

What have you seen? Were they testing a flawed copy?

Head over to TDP. At 300mm they are as close as two lenses get at the same apertures. Heck, f/5.6, f/8, and f/11 on either lens is pretty much interchangeable with the other lens/aperture combos.

Now compare to the f/2.8L II. Is the f/2.8 version sharper? Yes. By a large amount? Not really. The difference is greatest at f/4 and still smaller then post processing choices.

The new 100-400 II certainly does better at 400mm then the 300 f/4L IS + 1.4x, but that's to be expected.

Here any prime should be noticably better than a general purpose zoom imho.

Based on what? The old adage that primes are always better then zooms hasn't been true in years thanks to modern lens design and manufacturing. The 100-400 II was a significant update and no primes blow it away now.

I therefore believe that a new version would be a significant improvement.

That would put it well above the f/2.8L II. I don't expect that to happen. There's not a lot of room to move here as all of the lenses we're discussing are quite sharp. If you can't produce hair splitting 20x30" prints with any of these lenses then something is wrong.

Its surely the weakest performing white prime lens in the current Canon line-up. No wonder given its age.

I have no idea where you got this impression of the 300 f/4L IS. It's a stellar performer. Even if we were to split line pairs and concluded that it was the "weakest" of the current line up, that would still make it better then 99% of lenses in existence. (Actually, the 400 f/5.6L is probably the "weakest" of the white lenses right now, and still an incredible performer.)

It will be interesting to see what the new 100-400 II does to sales of the 300 f/4L IS. But the 70-300L didn't knock demand or price down.

Lenses / Re: Why not uppdate just the IS
« on: January 17, 2015, 04:24:50 AM »
Why not just update the transmission in your 1991 Automobile?  There is more than just the IS that needs updating.  The design is good, but its 24 years old.  It does not have coatings on the lens elements to prevent reflections from the sensor, which reduces contrast.  It is also not all that sharp compared to newer lenses, and suffers from LOCA's or purple fringing.

Um...what?  ??? We are talking about the 300 f/4L IS USM, right?

One of the better lenses Canon makes. My only lens that's actually worth more today then when I bought it as market demand allowed Canon to push up the price.

It's as sharp as the much newer 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM and 100-400 II. It's not as sharp as the 300 f/2.8L IS USM II, but it's close enough that after post processing I doubt anyone could tell them apart. I'm struggling to think of lenses that are sharper, and among those I can think of (the f/2.8 version; Zeiss primes and Sigma ART primes) it's only by a small amount.

CA and flare are both very well controlled. I've never seen sensor reflections or lost contrast even in very harsh light. (The 300 f/4L IS is my go to surfing lens when shooting from a pier. Also my go to airshow lens. Those are about as harsh/high contrast as it gets.)

LOCA's are present but aren't bad at all. They are a fact of life with relatively fast lenses (f/4 is fast for 300mm), and there's only so much you can do to eliminate them.

Many sports shooters turn off IS in any event, since it does not help with moving subjects.

I don't know about anyone else, but IS helps me track the target, especially after a long day of shooting. If I'm hand holding a lens it's on. And it's a solid 2 stop / often 3 stop gain with this lens.

Canon could make it as sharp as its f/2.8 big brother and add 4 stop IS for an update. But it's darn near perfect as is.

EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 10:56:36 AM »
I bet on it being a Canon sensor.  My guess is it will have the 5DIII AF System, and probably less than 4 fps.

I think I speak for everyone when I say that I hope it has no less then 14 stops of noise free the DR fights can stop  ;)

Only thing is, I do not care about any of the results shown in the samples in this thread at all. All of these images are falling apart - especially when they would be viewed large. And there is no more contrast or life left in them.

LOL! They are not "falling apart." I have a shadow exposure to compare my lifted version to, and though it's a little better, it's not substantially different.

Canon RAWs are fine to +2.5 and +3ev (depending on model). And the image which started yet another DRone debate could have easily been shot on a Canon.

Lenses / Re: Yet another DXO Interpretation Time video with Tony Northrup
« on: December 14, 2014, 02:53:38 AM »
To rebut, I'd first have to watch.  There are many things higher on my priority list than viewing Northrup's videos.  Watching paint dry and picking lint from my umbilicus are two things that come to mind...   :o

I don't was fun to watch him back peddle on the 7D2. Both he and his wife tried it without any preconceived notions from DxO and loved it, the performance and the IQ.

Then when DxO said it was no better then a D300 (DxO b trollin' yo) he was in the uncomfortable position of reconciling his trust in DxO with his real world experience.

I can't help but wonder if the same thing happens in this video?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58