April 20, 2014, 09:09:42 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 - TTMartin

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon DPP Version 3.13.45 update!
« on: September 24, 2013, 09:56:56 AM »
Canon DPP Version 3.13.45

- Supports images taken with EOS 70D, EOS Kiss X7 / EOS Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D, PowerShot G16, PowerShot S120.
- Supports new lens (EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X, EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM).
- The accuracy of the white balance in M-RAW and S-RAW images has been improved.

Looks like Canon took it down. Checked both Canon USA and Canon Europe. Canon Europe site still shows it, but, the download link is dead.
It's available again.
Wonder why Canon temporarily took it down?

2
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon DPP Version 3.13.45 update!
« on: September 24, 2013, 08:32:46 AM »
Canon DPP Version 3.13.45

- Supports images taken with EOS 70D, EOS Kiss X7 / EOS Rebel SL1 / EOS 100D, PowerShot G16, PowerShot S120.
- Supports new lens (EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM, EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4X, EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM).
- The accuracy of the white balance in M-RAW and S-RAW images has been improved.

Looks like Canon took it down. Checked both Canon USA and Canon Europe. Canon Europe site still shows it, but, the download link is dead.

3
Canon General / Re: Adorama issues anyone? Ever try to return a product?
« on: August 16, 2012, 11:27:15 AM »
Adorama Return Policy

Return Policy:
For the first 30 days of your purchase (7 Days for in store purchase) you may return the merchandise for a full money back refund, excluding any shipping charges, No RMA number is required to return an item, simply download and fill out the Return Merchandise form
 All returns must meet our guidelines.
 
Returned or exchanged products must be in brand-new, mint condition, and have all original manufacturers packaging, materials and accessories, including instruction booklets, packing inserts, and blank warranty cards.
 
Merchandise missing the original Universal Product Code (UPC) cannot be returned. The original manufacturer's labeled packaging should be enclosed within an outer shipping box. Please do not write or place shipping labels or stickers on the manufacturer's packaging.
Securely package the product and include the filled out Return Merchandise Form and a copy of the original invoice.
 
Ship the parcel back to us freight prepaid. We do not accept COD or freight collect shipments. We recommend a shipping method that provides tracking and insurance.

Ship to:
 Order Processing
 7 Slater Drive
 Elizabeth, NJ 07206
 
Items that qualified for free shipping that are being returned will have our standard shipping charges deducted from refund or credit. The return shipping cost (the cost to send an item back to us) is not refundable.
 
Please allow up to 8 business days after we receive the package for your return/exchange/refund to be processed. An email confirmation will be sent to you once the return is processed.
 
Important Note for international customers: Please mark the item as "VENDOR RETURN" to avoid duties and customs.
 
Items that cannot be returned
 
Items from the following categories may not be returned once opened:
•Software
• Film
• Paper
• DVDs and video tapes
• Bulbs and flash tubes
• Batteries
• Ink cartridges
• Memory cards
• Any item which has been removed from its "blister-pack"
 
Items from the following categories may not be returned:
•Printers cannot be returned once toner, ink or ribbon cartridges have been installed.
•TVs and monitors 20" and higher (Any warranty claim must be taken up with the manufacturer directly).
 Note: Upon delivery, please inspect the TV and insure that it is not physically damaged and in operable condition. DO NOT SIGN the delivery manifest until you have inspected the TV. Once you sign for the item, you are signing acceptance of the product as is. If the merchandise is damaged, please make the notation on the delivery manifest, and have the person delivering the merchandise sign as a witness to the damages and contact us immediatly to report the damage.
•Underwater photography equipment cannot be returned once they have been used in water.
•Cell phones and smart phones phones will only be accepted for credit or exchange if they register less than 10 minutes cumulative talk time and show no sign of use, defective phones will be exchanged for the same model only.
•Notebooks and computers cannot be returned or exchanged once opened or unwrapped.
 
If the above conditions are not met, Adorama has the right to refuse the return or charge a restocking fee.
 

4
EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?
« on: August 03, 2012, 07:03:16 AM »
I have a bit of inside info on this subject, can't really say too much but they're "resolving the issue of how to alter the test so that the 1d X doesn't beat the D4"

That's easy, just rate its DR (screen) at 11.9 EV (+ or - .3 EV) like EVERY other Canon dSLR they've tested.
It's more like, how is DxOMark going to spin the fact that someones noticed that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 file and has rated every Canon dSLR at the same DR (screen) since 2003.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: A New 100-400 & Coming Announcements [CR2]
« on: July 25, 2012, 11:15:02 AM »
Quote

i'm guessing the 24-70 II , the 24 f/2.8, the 28 f/2.8 and the 500 and 600 mm?


Dont forget EF 40 f/2.8 STM - its EF lens too  :)

And the EF-M 22mm and the EF-M 18-55mm those are lenses.

6

That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.


It's called normalization. Would you compare the times of two cars one to go 0-60 miles per hour and one to go 0-60 kilometers per hour directly without conversion factor?

You can't directly compare 22.3MP against 6MP as if the noise was all at the same power scale.
Or maybe you thought the D700 had much better SNR than the 5D2?

DxOMark claims to be testing the sensor, yet they come up with Print results?

The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels. Normalizing for Dynamic Range simply hides the fact that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 files, by making it look like their Dynamic Range reading is changing when it isn't.

A more accurate analogy would be comparing the 0-60mph times of a two seat car and a four seat car, would I 'normalize the results' with some conversion factor because the four seat car can carry twice as many people to 60mph in the same time? You and DxOMark might, but, I wouldn’t.

Whether the D700 or 5D Mk II is better is an extraneous argument that has nothing to do with the fact that DxOMark cannot fully decode the CR2 file.

You keep talking about all the tests that have shown that the DxOMark dynamic range scores are accurate. The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too. I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter. The closest thing is DPReview’s Dynamic Range Tests which use the cameras JPG engine for RAW conversion. Those tests show that without any electronic enhancements on that the 5D Mk III has more Dynamic Range than the D800, and with D800s ADL on that it has about a 1/3 of a stop more Dynamic Range than the 5D Mk III with HTP on. This is certainly not the 2.7 stop advantage indicated by DxOMark (D800 – DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) 13.23 vs .5D Mk III – DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) 10.97)

7
... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better.  :-\

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.

Press the screen button in the upper left below the ISO Sensitivity. That gives you a pixel for pixel score. Dynamic range doesn't change with megapixels, unless you're DxOMark, then you come up with some formula that does that.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: New, cheaper, Canon FF DSLR... 70D?
« on: July 23, 2012, 11:58:16 AM »
The problem with making the xxD line full frame is that many of the users of that line are consumers who do not know the diference between FF and crop anyway. They also probably wouldn't pnotice the difference anyway. Many also might not understand the differences between EF & EF-S lenses. They would also be discouraged by the more expensive price of a FF kit lens.

It would be a marketing disaster for many upgraders from the 60D, who have been ingorantly (I mean that in a good way... ignorance is bliss!) using it with nothing other than the 18-55 & 55-250 twin lens kit they bought with it. Imagine all the people who would be left wondering why their lenses no longer work. Heck, given the quality of the sales staff in many of the stores in my area, I wonder if the salespeople would even know the difference when recommending lenses!

Also keep in mind that Canon has a very well thought out price-tier (oh look, this one's only $100 more, maybe I'll buy this one instead!) Making the xxD series FF would take out one of the most important steps in that tier (ie the first step away from the consumer-auto-mode-oriented Rebels) and would prevent many people from even considering anything other than the 650D.

I do not see a line which takes EF-S glass including a model which does not. I see a new FF body having an xD or a new nomenclature model. Starting with letters perhaps. Still most likely it will be 6D. Most likely I will buy one. Well…… it would have to have these specs:

If not mag body then at least plastic top notch and some or more sealing.Bigger than Rebel body.
5D3 sensor
1CF card slot, I don't expect a double
7D equivalent AF
Better low light and ISO noise than 7D, let me get to at least 3200 without noise!
Same battery as 7D/5D

But, what about the 7D user who has nothing but his EF-S 18-135 kit lens, and wants to upgrade to the 6D and can't use it.
That will be so confusing a complete marketing disaster!

9
... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better.  :-\

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

10
Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal.  Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 22, 2012, 06:22:14 AM »
If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance.  I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors. 

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof?  They might have a slightly different "look", but better?  I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.   

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!


All the electronic enhancements off, and for some reason actual DR output directly from the D800 is less than the that output from the 5D Mk III.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

Yes, the test is made using in camera JPG, but, that takes 3rd party RAW decoders out of the picture.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: New, cheaper, Canon FF DSLR... 70D?
« on: July 21, 2012, 08:35:39 PM »
This is a good point, although I am a proponent of making the xxD FF because I just do not see the differentiation to the 650D anymore. But a do a 60D crop guy upgrade to a 70D or a 7D? The way canon is going, a 70 D will only be a replacement, not an upgrade??

Since the 7D was the upgrade to the 50D, no reason it can't be the upgrade path from the 60D.

If the 7D is too much of an upgrade from the 60D, they could always upgrade to the 50D instead.  ;)

13
EOS Bodies / Re: New, cheaper, Canon FF DSLR... 70D?
« on: July 21, 2012, 11:08:25 AM »
I've always felt that the "entry level FF DSLR" in rumors will be the 7D Mk II, while the 70D will move up to where the 7D is now.

That'll make the single-digit xD the designation for "full frame," the xxD designation will be for prosumer DSLRs, and the xxxD designation will be for Rebels, just like in the past. That'll make things nice and neat and clear for shoppers.

I agree with dilbert, the 7D is a pro featured camera and deserves the XD moniker, a polycarb entry level camera does not.

Sensor size has never determined if a camera is pro or not. Canon's flagship 1D, 1D Mk II, 1D Mk III and 1D Mk IV were all APS sensors, not full frame.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: What will be the price of first EOS M?
« on: July 21, 2012, 11:03:33 AM »
Is the Poll, how much will it cost or how much should it cost?

Two very different things.

When the first micro 4/3s mirrorless cameras were introduced they sold for just shy of $1000.
Today you can purchase an Olympus E-PL1 Pen (camera body) for $150, Olympus PEN E-PL2 (body only) for $250. The kit less for these cameras is around $150.

15

DPP does reveal more DR.

Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn
really?
show us
and it makes the 5D3 reveal more than the 5D2?

Has already been answered


IIRC, someone on these very forums posted several examples comparing DPP to ACR when working 5D III shots, and DPP definitely extracted better shadow DR than ACR/LR did. It was a while back, and I don't remember the title of the post, so I'll have to do some digging to find it. The results weren't as good as what you get from an Exmor, but it demonstrated that ACR is definitely lacking something that is preventing it from fully realizing the potential of the CR2 raw format.


Quote from: TTMartin
I've never seen banding in DPP.

Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn
I have, although later versions control it a bit more.

Guess I'll have to take your word on that.

Quote from: TTMartin
Who would store data in this fashion? Evidently Canon. Why would they do that? Well, a couple years prior to the CR2 format being released, Nikon updated the NEF format and encrypted part of the data. Why would Nikon do that? When Nikon did there was outrage, and of course the encryption was quickly broken. So when Canon updated their CR2 format, they hid the data in more or less plain sight. No up roar over the data being encrypted, nobody hacking it a couple weeks after it was introduced.

Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn
And so then what about Nikon? SOme of their cams have banding to? SO have sensors from any digital camera ever made. All the banding was just secretly storing extra DR? There isn't even enough banding sections to cover the frame in a way to even propose what you propose. Total nonsense.

The banding is in one section of the file, doesn't cover the whole sensor, but, is a sensor issue and not additional data being stored in that section of the file? OK, if you say so.

Exactly how much compressed data would it take to increase the dynamic range of an image file?

Quote from: TTMartin
Where the key is I don't know. Why has nobody found one? Probably because they haven't looked.

Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn
People have looked through CR2 through and through.

The whole idea is complete nonsense. But, someone has taken the time to look at the noise in the banding and made sure it wasn't encrypted data and/or compressed data? Either it's nonsense or it's been completely investigated, really can't be both.

Quote from: TTMartin
As for the moon, thing watch the movie 'Contact' if you don't get the concept.

Quote from: LetTheRightLensIn
umm yeah

(and for the record that movie shows nothing whatsoever ever the moon landing conspiracy type stuff, at all)

No it wasn't about moon landing conspiracy type stuff, what was it about?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7