October 02, 2014, 12:48:28 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 - takesome1

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Can the new 7d mark ii challenge the 1d mark iv?
« on: October 01, 2014, 03:03:48 PM »
The questions is not "Can the new 7d mark ii  challenge the 1d mark iv?"
Of course it can.

The question is "What will be the results when new 7d mark ii challenges the 1d mark iv."

For me I will do the challenge in November.
I could speculate, but at this point once it arrives I will know the old fashion way. Hands On.(if Canon delivers)

2
Since wildlife is my thing, of course my pics improved with the 500L since it is better than my 100-400mm. The 100-400mm is better than 75-300mm I started with. Then going from the 50D --5D II / 7D to a 1D IV my keeper rate went up.

A few years back I was skill and equipment limited. As far as gear goes now I am just skill limited.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 27, 2014, 09:07:41 AM »
I for one would be interested in seeing comparisons of pics taken in real situations that photographers face.
The shooter draws a conclusion, provides the RAW files and anyone can see if they draw the same conclusion.

This would be much better than the pointless technical banter that never proves anything or goes anywhere.

This is a very fair, valid request. A little difficult to do, but very worthwhile. What makes it hard is that it's actually very difficult to find sunsets/sunrises that do bottom out a, say D810. So it's hard to show the real difference, i.e. 'what's possible'. And if you do find the right high dynamic range scene, you're probably a landscape photographer who woke up at 2:30 am to shoot a sunrise at a beautiful location, not do a head-to-head test which is fairly challenging to do with the quickly changing light of a good sunrise/sunset. You also have to bracket both cameras all over the place so that you can go back home and then find the one where the highlights are just short of clipping, or where ACR can recover detail/color to taste.

I'm not saying it's impossible, it's usually just hard to do well. Hopefully someone will do it (well). I'll try at some point, maybe, before I sell off my 5D3.


I think it would be very easy. You are making the assumption that it would only be good in that type of situation. You are also still proving the technical function of the camera and not the in situation usable function of the camera. DR can improve pictures in many situations, your example is only one.

DR goes both ways, up and down. All day long you can take pictures and find situations where you loose detail and shadows and blow highlights. Whether it is a man in a shaded area or an picture that blows out the clouds all could use the help. Will an extra stop of DR help me? Will the extra stop be usable or will it have to much noise? I go through my pictures and pull down the highlights to get the sky, draw up the shadows to see a bit more detail. To my eye I would want to know which does it best.

It doesn't need to be a controlled scientific test. You gather a random sampling of pictures through the day identical in both bodies. At the end you PP and you have injected your style and your skill level in to the test. The results are yours and you have an answer. I am sure you will find along the way that both body has advantages and disadvantages. You will find one lens is probably better than the other.

But in the end the final result wins for you. Although on a given day the photographer at 2:30 on the mountain may have a different winner.

Side note is that when the D800 was first released I investigated this for myself to see what the benefit might be. That was over 2 years ago and the debates were few at first. It is interesting that it has blown up in to such a huge topic.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:36:30 PM »
I fully plan to create some "optimal" exposures, that was actually the entire point of renting the A7r in the first place. It also so happens that this weekend is the last weekend for fall colors in the mountains. It might be raining, not sure yet, but I'm going to try to get some landscape photos, every scene with both cameras, bracketed, etc. I don't have a lot of time to go hunting for awesome landscape scenes, so don't expect any kind of impressive artwork, but I always planned to do a more rigorous comparison between the two.

I've seen lengthy geometric proofs for the fact that a square is the largest rectangle that can be inscribed in a circle, and even lengthier algebraic proofs that 1 + 1 = 2.  At the end of your testing, I'd be quite surprised if don't conclude that the a7R has more DR than the 5DIII and you can push the shadows harder. 

Still, there's value in demonstrating to ourselves that which we expect to be true.  Enjoy!

I think he will have that conclusion as we'll, that is the easy part.
The hard part of the question is there enough difference to matter.

I for one would be interested in seeing comparisons of pics taken in real situations that photographers face.
The shooter draws a conclusion, provides the RAW files and anyone can see if they draw the same conclusion.

This would be much better than the pointless technical banter that never proves anything or goes anywhere.

Also, the circle square exercise sounds like military funded peg research.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:35:20 PM »
How can you have a poll that asks this "Yes. If the reviews confirm the hype."
There is no "Hype", Canon hasn't announced a camera.

Because there is always "hype" when a Canon FF 5-series DSLR is announced. If not from anyone else then from Canon Marketing. So extremely solid guess that there will be once again as soon as the 5DIV is announced.

Yes, but we don't know the Hype yet  :)

If the Hype is 50mp with 10fps, DR twice what the cameras are now, an AF system that never misses, workable ISO to 12800 then yes please count me in.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:30:54 PM »
I see noise in the landscape picture in the upper left hand corner in the A7R pushed picture.
This landscape picture must have been shot with a Canon camera and the A7R is picking up on the detail of the noise.

LOL.  ;D Ironically, yeah, all the landscape pictures were taken with Canon cameras. :P They do have their problems with noise as well. I could share those, if I could find them...I think some of those were taken with my original 450D, which actually wasn't as bad as the 7D or 5D III at low ISO (again, ironically.)

Well on the serious side. :)

Lets put this test in perspective to the non technical guys that just want to take good shoots.

You have an A7R and the 5D III in hand.
In the digital age memory is cheap, you just underexposed a shot by 4 or 5 stops. You look at your screen and your review shows black. You screwed up. If it is a picture of bigfoot and he just ran off well you try and push the picture and maybe it matters. But landscapes, buildings and front room chairs do not run away. You take another shot and get it right. So no benefit to DR here. So I look at your pictures and say they are meaningless as far as seeing how I would improve. I know how to delete bad pictures, you just click on the trash button.

However as I said before you have an A7R and a 5D III in hand.

So you go to the park mid day with the sun high, you find the edge where there are a few trees and a lake off to the side. Your buddy goes and stands under a tree, you try and capture the clouds and the lake and you look at your viewfinder and either one or the other blows out. Shade or sky take your pick. Use both bodies, like I said both are in hand. When you get home this shot matters but you want to improve it. You put both shots in LR and you work away. At the end of your PP one will be better than the other. That is the winner for you.  It may not be the winner in someone else's hand but it will be in yours.

Real life situations, real pictures those are the ones that matter. That is the test. It is not hard to set the test up real life, we all know why we want more DR.
 
Underexposing, pushing it up and down, putting the lens cap on in the end are meaningless. End result wins.

Don't believe the results? You say here are the Raw files, decide for yourself.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Poll: Would you buy a high MP Canon EOS 5DIV?
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:11:49 PM »
I didn't read all the posts...but...

How can you have a poll that asks this "Yes. If the reviews confirm the hype."

There is no "Hype", Canon hasn't announced a camera.
The only information anyone here has exists only in their imagination.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: More Talk of an October Announcement of a DSLR [CR1]
« on: September 26, 2014, 04:08:15 PM »
To all the people threatening to jump from Canon to Sony/Nikon...

When you bought your Canon camera, it was obviously because you needed/wanted its performance.  It was good enough.  Now suddenly it's not good enough?  Did it deteriorate in quality?  You bought a camera because its performance was what sought, and now its performance (which is the exact same as when you bought it) is not good enough?  Y'all make me laugh.  Hah.

Did you type this on your IBM XT 286 or have you upgraded yet?

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 03:56:44 PM »
Alright. First photos with the A7r. Quick point and shoots. :P I like the IQ...hmm, going to have to see about the body. It's already demonstrated some weaknesses...well. I'll share my thoughts once I've had more time with it.

Sorry about the delay in getting these up. As soon as I exported the sample JPEGs, imgur decided to quit on me. Using PhotoBucket now.

I'm not going to give any of my own conclusions. Everyone can come up with their own. All I'm going to say is, I exposed to preserve the highlights outside the window. The camera meters showed -3EV. I had to boost exposure +4 to result in the same kind of ambient lighting of the room that my eyes saw. I'll share the RAW files soon, along with a couple GIF images to directly compare.

Oh, and I won't "mislabel" anything.

Original Exposures (1/30s f/4 ISO 100):


Canon 5D III


Sony A7r

Pushed Exposures (+4 EV, -100 Highlights):


Canon 5D III


Sony A7r

Fill size jpeg images for the pushed versions:

Canon: http://i1375.photobucket.com/albums/ag461/jrista/A7rvs5DIII-ExposeforHighlightsPushShadows4stops-2_zps8fed09de.jpg
Sony: http://i1375.photobucket.com/albums/ag461/jrista/A7rvs5DIII-ExposeforHighlightsPushShadows4stops_zps0cca615c.jpg

Let the ridicule parade begin. Just, don't be mean. That goes for people on either side of the debate. It doesn't need to be a war. Those of you who don't care about having more DR, great, wonderful. You already have equipment that satisfies you, move on with your lives. Those who do care about having more DR, well, you can have it. There are cameras out there that offer a lot more, some of them are not extremely expensive and compatible with your Canon lenses thanks to Metabones. Don't cut yourself short...if you have a use for more DR, more DR is easy to have.

I see noise in the landscape picture in the upper left hand corner in the A7R pushed picture.
This landscape picture must have been shot with a Canon camera and the A7R is picking up on the detail of the noise.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 24, 2014, 05:23:07 PM »
I'm at work... so maybe it's just a me problem... or maybe it is my generation... but anytime I see more than one paragraph in a post... unless it is specifically directed at me... I skip it. 


I do to, just too much circular babbling about the same thing.

By the way you posted three paragraphs and I only read the first. Since this post was directed at  your post I will assume you will read this line.

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 24, 2014, 10:06:23 AM »
The squirrel in the Canon Rumors tree would be one big fat squirrel.
If we take a picture of him in the shade of the tree lets just hope we can pull enough detail out to see his eyelashes and fat belly.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 08:39:33 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 one's for you, jrista).

All equipment has limits, if you push it past those limits then it will fail.
This is true of other bodies and sensors as well.
No matter which body or manufacture you are using you should always take the DR in to account, none have enough range.
The best claim you could make here is that you do not have to discard as many shots with the other camera due to your poor craftsmanship.

But you give a bad example, it is bad because you pushed the lens and body beyond its limits. It was the combination of the body and lens not just the sensor.

A good example is a comparison of two identical shots taken with the same exact lens in the exact same situation.
Posts an example like this and we have something to discuss other than your skill level with a shot that you failed.



13
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:48:26 AM »
Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.
But I bought the lens to use it for shallow DOF, not use it at it's sweet spot. Can you appreciate/understand that?

I know very well the Canon 24/1.4 needs a massive update. It's resolution & vignetting are sub-par next to other offerings, *especially* what I'm sure Sigma will offer in an Art series lens. The 35mm Sigma Art blows away the rather outdated Canon 35L, for example.

This is not about a lack of understanding, it's about *choices*.

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.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:31:42 AM »
You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example.  I don't.

And I don't get the noise I showed in my example at ISO 100 w/ Exmor, but I get 4.5 EV of additional headroom compared to ISO 2000 (on either Canon or Nikon).

And that's the entire point. B/c with Canon's read noise, you're *required* to pre-amplify your data rather than amplify it in post-processing. And this costs you highlights.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in forum posts.

Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable.  Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky.  Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations.  So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background?  That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

But my example is all about DR at low ISO... how can you say you do care about low ISO DR and then say my example is completely invalid? The background trees/grass that have noise/FPN is a classic example of low DR. I'm honestly completely perplexed at your thinking.

Why am I boosting exposure on a dark background? B/c trees aren't black in real life. The background is dark b/c I *chose* to underexpose in that example to keep the sky from clipping.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

What's not sound is telling someone who wants the shallowest DOF and most subject isolation he can get to shoot one stop stopped down - bringing you half of the way from that prime to an f/2.8 zoom. Negating literally half of the prime's advantage when it comes to DOF.

I completely understand my gear - perhaps a bit too well - which is why I also understand it doesn't meet my needs.

Sweet spot? Sweet spot for what? Resolution? Vignetting? I want the most subject isolation I can get and you're telling me to stop down my lens, effectively to that of a zoom (to whoever mentioned to go down to f/2.8 )? So then remind me why I'm carrying 3 primes on a belt & constantly swapping between them rather than just slapping on a 24-70 f/2.8L II? For a marginal increase in sharpness - an attribute I'm not trying to optimize for?

Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.




15
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:50:08 PM »
Fill flash is a very, very common technique.  Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait.  Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash.  Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

Right, which is what I did, as I explained earlier:

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Still doesn't detract from my original point: I wouldn't have even had to 'bracket'. And I'm sure no one has ever, ever accidentally underexposed an image b/c the meter overreacted to a backlight and the photographer didn't have time to check the image amidst the action he/she was trying to capture. No, I bet that never happens.

And as for choosing between shallow DOF or vignetting - it's always been one or the other with primes, right, so that's how it should remain forever of course!

But seeing that argument you just made makes me realize you're simply arguing against progress, so there's really no point in me continuing this line of conversation.

You're essentially saying that Ansel Adams worked around the limitation, so so should we. Even when technology is available that allows us to not have to work around it. And completely ignoring the fact that Ansel Adams developed many of his own techniques to get around input/output DR limitations.

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Right...

Suggesting I stop my prime down to f/2.8 was particularly comical. You're saying I'm expecting too much of technology, yet the the D810 meets those expectations, and I'm just making that known, but you're still saying I'm expecting too much of technology.

Except... I'm not, b/c there's already tech out there that meets (at least those) needs.

At this point it's just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives: I just can't understand the anti-progress sentiment, so I give up.

I think Ansel Adams would have waited for the magic moment where all the light reach the dynamic range where there was not 5 stops difference between the light and dark areas.
I would speculate that he would do the same whether he had the latest greatest new film or the same old film and not rely on the crutch that this new film is somehow better.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23