November 22, 2014, 08:34:30 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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23
1
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: Today at 01:29:19 PM »
I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?

you might want to check other websites too.
dpreview, petapixel, f-stopper etc. etc. etc.

they all are very critical about canon these days.
and i donĀ“t speak about the comments, i mean the articles.

dpreview suprised me with it harsh words the most "boring cameras becoming the hallmark of canon".... that was basically what they said in one of their 6D articles.

canon has overall a worse reputation in the media then 3 years ago.

I think the internet chatter has become more negative. But reviews are still solid in most areas. Dpreview rightly point out that DR at low ISO isn't as good in Canon cameras as Sony sensor ones, for instance, but they still rate Canon *cameras* (and lenses, etc) as good - which they are, overall. Canon is *good*, overall. Not perfect. Nobody thinks they are, nobody is.

2
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: Today at 01:27:48 PM »
Satisfied Canon user here.  My take is that there are far too many folks on the forum who think technology makes the photo.  They are more concerned with test results, sensor comparisons and all the technical information that is on the web.  Test results show that other sensors are better, therefore Canon sucks - is the basic thought process.  They are obsessed with noise and DR.  Many of us who spent many years with film admittedly don't get it.  Photos can be grainy - and quite frankly - often look better grainy than having the plastic-smooth overly processed look.  More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many.  Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP.  And, yet, people want even more MPs!  Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses.  (In fact, at 8' x 10" printed size, there is no discernible difference between pics taken with my old Canon 300D and my new 6D).  So if a Sony sensor tests as being 10% better than the Canon sensor, then obviously the Sony pics will be so much better...although you probably won't be able to tell the difference purely by eye!

A good photo is the result of subject matter, composition, atmosphere, contrast, color.  And yet, it seems like those topics aren't even considered by many.  For them a good photo is judged by the amount of noise and the Dynamic Range.   

All that being said, there are some folks you take pics in extreme conditions - very low light, astrophotography, etc.  For them, the difference is meaningful and I can understand their frustration.  If Canon doesn't meet their needs they should switch.  There is no reason to think that Canon has the knowledge (or the ability to come up with new patents that don't infringe on Sony's patents) to substantially improve their sensors in the near future.  But if all you need is a solid, dependable camera that will last you 5 to 10 years and take great pictures, then there is no reason to be disappointed.  If you want the latest and greatest and want to upgrade every two years, then by all means, switch.

I think technology is relevant to what shots you can take - in some areas at least. There's a rough hierarchy, so landscapes and street work require less specialist equipment than wildlife, sports, or macro photography, for instance. Shaving a kilo of a super telephoto lens, or adding IS, for instance, can allow new work to be made. But I also agree that some people fixate on the device, and don't seem to have much understanding of the creative possibilities already available, which is a shame for them.

3
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: Today at 01:24:18 PM »
Yes, and no!  Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products.  So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable.  Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check.  Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at
a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.

(My bold) This is worth remembering. It's easier for small businesses to be quirky, or take risks. Sony isn't a small company, but their camera division by all accounts makes a loss, and they fire out products hoping to gain customers by supporting it from other profitable areas. They clearly make good products (the sensor in the 645Z has me salivating), but they don't have a position to defend in this field yet.

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Again, yes. As many have said (yet some refuse to believe), any modern camera *can* take good photographs. People argue about minutiae - which is good, but should obscure the amazing advances made already.

4
Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: Today at 01:21:03 PM »
In general, people with a grievance will make more fuss than those who are satisfied - in all areas of life.

5
Post Processing / Re: POLL: Do you need to fill the histogram in post?
« on: November 21, 2014, 06:44:48 PM »
This makes me miss Lightroom :( When I was doing proper editing (before my computer broke) I did fall into this habit. I think as others have said, you should do what looks good to you. But I liked the look I got this way - using as much of the histogram space as possible without going past the ends. That way I feel I'm making the most of the available display data. It usually involved pulling the extreme bright and dark parts a little, giving the images a little zing. But it does vary by subject - doesn't work with very low contrast images to begin with. Combined with ETTR I found it minimised shadow noise, too. But then I see some photos I know I could never produce, and I wish I had a little more variety in my approach. Maybe one day.

(It goes without saying I process from raw; I prefer to take a neutral image and apply sharpening, noise reduction, contrast, etc. by eye afterwards).

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 06:31:43 PM »
Kirispupis where are you in the PNW?

I'm in portland and while the wildlife opportunities are legion this time of year, the light is not.

I shoot with the 5diii and 1dx at between 800 and 3200 and sometimes higher usually in order to get a shutter speed of 1250 for large lumbering birds and 2000 for fast flickering birds.

I think that a climate with consistent snow cover would brighten images and make a crop camera viable.  But for me if I can't use iso 1600 to 6400 I might as well paint watercolors.  Passing on 7d2, eager to see what the 5D4 and dx2 bring to table,  but even there more smaller pixels probably means worse high iso performance, I would think that canon's dilemma here is that adding pixels  would push iso performance down, and that is not the way to sell more bodies.

1/1250-1/2000 for birds? In flight yeah, but otherwise... that's a surprise. My favourite subjects are birds, usually smallish passerines, and I shoot around 1/320 in poorer light to 1/500 unless they're flying. There's no blur until you get down below 1/200-250 in my experience.

7
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 08:10:37 AM »
Essentially, are 5DIII @ 1000mm f/10 and 7DII @ 700mm f/5.6 basically the same (and not worth buying a new camera for), or in low light is there a little advantage to the crop here?

I suspect the 5DIII would have an IQ advantage, more so as the ISO rises.  The 7DII would have a clear AF advantage in that comparison.

Oh sure, AF would be better but we know that :) (there are other advantages to 700mm, such as less chromatic aberration, which only seems to appear with the 2x extender). I'd still love to do some side-by-side comparisons. I guess any differences will be subtle in any case. Maybe I'm just talking myself into wanting this camera :/

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 08:08:29 AM »

I do have other images at ISO 800 that are better.  You are correct that pushed to the right the results are better, but I often do not have this convenience in Seattle.


Agree that the 7D2 is not the ideal camera for the heavy cloud cover of the Pacific Northwest.  For you, full frame and big glass may be the best option. The 7d2 doesn't do well at all with underexposed images which is what i see in the duck photos. The mink photo, which is very nice, also could have used an extra stop with the 5D3 I imagine. My guess is you would have gotten better images at higher ISO with both bodies.

It's important to always keep in mind that the 7D2 has a 60% magnification imbedded in its images. That magnifies your subject, but also exaggerates the flaws. The 7D2 isn't going to be the best choice for everybody but It can be an excellent choice for some when used as it's designers intended.

I cured myself of my chronic under exposure problem, a remnant of shooting film, by switching to auto ISO. I try not to let ISO get completely out of control, but ETR almost always gives the best result with the current camera bodies. It seems counterintuitive, especially to old school film shooters like me, but the underlying science for it is quite sound.

I certainly found that when I stopped holding back on exposing to the right I got much better results overall. I wouldn't have dreamed of going over ISO 3200 with the 5DIII but when I started using the technique properly, I found up to ~ISO 8000 could yield usable results. I imagine the 7DII could do fine at ISO 3200-4000, especially as you'd be cropping less in pp.

9
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:29:40 AM »
A couple of wagtails towards sunset.

10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 07:20:51 AM »
Clearly it's a problem with the lens.  You need a better one...



 ;)



I, too, am passing on the 7DII.  As I've stated previously, the main advantage of APS-C is lower cost.  Having owned the 7D, moved to the 5DII for everything but birds/wildlife (because the AF of the 5DII wasn't up to the task), then moved to the 1D X and selling both the 5DII and 7D, I don't see going back to APS-C, except when the constraints of an outing preclude a full sized camera, and in that case the 7DII would also be too big (and that's where my EOS M comes into play).

I agree on the cost thing. But I wonder what you think about this - something I've been considering while idly wondering if I should get this as a backup to my 5DIII. At present I use the 500+2x much of the time for small birds. I use it at f/10 because stopping down seems to improve sharpness a bit. However, this is a bit narrow when light levels are poorer (and the AF is much restricted). If I use the 7DII, I could stay with the 500+1.4 at f/5.6, and the crop reach is 1120mm (which is close enough to 1000mm for me). That extra aperture would allow me to use it in much lower light.

Now, I know the high ISO on a crop sensor isn't as good. So does it all cancel out? I don't think anyone has addressed this, admittedly rather special case. Essentially, are 5DIII @ 1000mm f/10 and 7DII @ 700mm f/5.6 basically the same (and not worth buying a new camera for), or in low light is there a little advantage to the crop here?

I'd welcome anyone else who has thoughts. Thanks :)

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 18, 2014, 04:55:58 PM »

fandf-15 by lozwilkes, on Flickr

At Feathers and Fur, a small experience centre near Reading, UK

Now THAT is a bird portrait!

12
EOS Bodies / Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 06, 2014, 03:08:13 PM »
We've read your posts long enough to know you're not a one-issue guy, and that you care about many things - for good reason. Your contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think.


Well, thanks. :)

As for DR etc, I think the proof of the pudding would come with a camera especially aimed at landscapes/studio work, but we'll see. I'm still saving up for whatever comes :)


I hope Canon does something amazing. I want to see photo quality that just blows my mind. I just hope it doesn't cost $8999. :P I could buy a LOT of astrophotography gear, even rather expensive CCD cameras and a bunch of really high quality filters, for that much money.

I'm sure they'll set the price where they know it'll make them most money. They haven't stayed profitable this long without knowing how to do that - but personally I'd like everything to cost 1/10th what it does now ;)

13
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 06, 2014, 01:23:42 PM »
you're really not comparing this to the 200-400/4 are you? o.O

Why not?  It's only one stop of difference.  The 100-400 has the 100-200 range while the 200-400 has the built-in TC.  I'd bet the optics are similar and that it would be really hard to tell the difference between them at the same focal length.

I'd say "it's a WHOLE stop of difference". Night and day in those focal lengths. Compare 300/2.8 and 300/4 or 200/2 and 200/2.8 - there is also "only" one stop difference, yet there is quite surprising PRICE difference :)

Yes, and that's one reason I find Canon superteles so hugely overpriced.

Compare a 70-200/4L IS and a 70-200/2.8L IS and you'll see a difference that I think is much more justified than the difference between a 300/4L IS and a 300/2.8L IS or a 100-400L IS and a 200-400/4L IS.

Of course what seems good value is subjective, but you mustn't forget the superteles have better ruggedness and weather sealing, better IS, better AF speed and accuracy, and are sharper wide open than their little siblings. It's not just about the aperture.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 06, 2014, 01:06:05 PM »
I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Your needs should be all that counts for your photography.  But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is 'doomed' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority).  Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).


Just to set the record strait, here. For everyone reading this. (i.e. this is not just a direct reply to Neuro...it's informational...boggles my mind that I have to caveat like this, but hey, this community is just so wonderful about dissenting viewpoints.)


First, in my case, it's not just about low ISO DR. It's about improved sensor IQ across the board, increased DR across the board, low and high ISO (because it's already been done.) Increased color fidelity across the board, low and high. Increased resolution. Increased sharpness, yet not at the cost of false detail (which, IMO, is best achieved by pushing sensor resolution to the point where you generally oversample the lens, and are thus legitimately able to drop the AA filter entirely, and simply resport to downsampling to "sharpen.)


But that aside, Neuro's post here conveniently misses the point (that I have tried to make on many occasions) that Canon already excels in every area except sensors (as relative to current, modern technology.) The only area that Canon can realize significant improvements to overall output IQ is their sensor technology. Canon already has excellent, if not superior, AF technology. They are clearly distributing that technology, which premiered with the 1D X, to the rest of their cameras (or at least the rest of their pro-grade cameras, which is, IMO, good enough.) Canon already has superior glass (yes, I really do believe superior in most cases, although there are outliers that fall behind the competition, usually on the shorter end). Canon already has excellent ergonomics (won't say superior...it's a matter of taste/preference here.)


Canon currently excels in most areas...sensor IQ is the one area they do not excel. They haven't really excelled there for years, even back in the 5D II days, Canon's read noise was already a problem, and they had already reached the general limits of what their sensor technology could do...~11 stops (give or take) DR at best.


Just to put the record strait, for everyone reading Neuro's post, at least in regards to myself. I care about sensor IQ as a whole, not just low ISO, not just high ISO, not just one thing or another. I care about it overall, top to bottom, and I see sensor IQ as the one single area  that Canon could, if they would invest the resources, realize very significant gains. (And maybe they have...there are rumors about a radical new layered sensor coming from Canon in 2015... Personally, given how Canon excels in every other area I care about, I truly hope the rumors are true, and that come 2015, Canon trounces the competition with something mindblowing. That's my hope. I'm still a skeptic. :P )

We've read your posts long enough to know you're not a one-issue guy, and that you care about many things - for good reason. Your contributions have been overwhelmingly positive, I think.

As for DR etc, I think the proof of the pudding would come with a camera especially aimed at landscapes/studio work, but we'll see. I'm still saving up for whatever comes :)

15
EOS Bodies / Re: The 7D2 gets pooped on by DXO... to no one's surprise.
« on: November 06, 2014, 08:55:23 AM »
I'm neither pro sony nor anti-canon or low iso dr fanatic. Of course that my needs are all that counts for my photography. Thats why I only talk about what I would like to have and not judge anybody else's preferences.

Your needs should be all that counts for your photography.  But frequently on these forums, people seem to believe that Canon has a responsibility to meet their specific personal needs, and go on to claim that Canon is 'doomed' if their personal needs aren't met (presumably because they assume their personal needs represent those of the majority).  Those who disagree, or point out Canon's many benefits and innovations (lenses, top AF, DPAF, anti-flicker, etc.) are accused of being fanboys trying to stifle innovation (innovation being narrowly defined by those people specifically as improved low ISO DR).

At the risk of being accused of being one of your acolytes (to put it mildly), you've put it more eloquently than I did :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 23