August 01, 2014, 04:58:36 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 - scyrene

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 50 f/1.2L Goes Missing at Canon Germany
« on: July 31, 2014, 11:20:04 AM »
I hope they bring back the f/1.0 - just sharper!

Me too!

2
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 02:07:20 PM »
Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult.  Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context.  Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.


How dare you say such a thing! Clearly you are an idiot!  (note to moderators, this is what is called being facetious)

On an only slightly more serious note, after following this thread through page after page, I find nothing that would make me change my earlier opinion. People use personal, subjective results to support blanket statements masquerading as facts.

Mr. Agar is clearly a very successful photographer. I don't know of many photographers who pull down more than $300,000 a year, which is what he indicated he is earning. And, yes, in my book, that does warrant some consideration and respect.

On the other hand, I refer again to the parallel post discussing Zach Arias' amusing rant http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21991.msg419168#msg419168 on sensor size. I suspect that Mr. Arias might be close or even exceed Mr. Agar in income, so here we have two highly successful photographers who appear to have reached nearly opposite conclusions.

I have to say that in my experience (subjective observation acknowledged) from reading articles by commercially successful photographers, the bulk seem to fall more on Mr. Arias' side than on Mr. Agar's – that is, most tend to write that the differences between brands and formats are marginal.

I don't doubt that Mr. Agar made his decision to switch systems after carefully considering what was better for him. I simply doubt that his personal decision can then be transformed into a blanket and objective assessment of the overall quality of either Nikon or Canon products.

As was discussed earlier, confirmation bias is a powerful thing and we are all slaves to it.

On a much more random note, I am fascinated by the shadow pattern that Mr. Agar showed in that model's arm. I've never seen anything quite like that and I notice that it seems to appear throughout the image in the shadows. It's very bizarre and since I have no experience with it in my own photographs (which certainly have their share of shadow areas) I can't venture a guess as to what caused it to occur. But, of course, because I too am a slave to my own experience, I have a difficult time believing that it represents some flaw or issue with the sensor in that camera.


Maybe that's in part why people want objective standards to measure stuff by. I doubt it's ultimately possible (without caveats), but what started all this was a discussion about a website giving scores based on purportedly objective measurements, ironically.

Confirmation bias is a real problem, but some people do try to account for it. Not enough though :(

3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:27:35 PM »
Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult.  Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context.  Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.

 :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o hehe

4
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:24:45 PM »
What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

No, it's not an irrational fanboy problem, it is a money problem. If I could afford to sell out of Canon and replace all my Canon gear with Nikon, then I'd do it in a heart beat. But I can't. And I suspect the same is true for many others. We're all effectively held hostage by Canon so we're pretty much at the mercy of whatever Canon decides to deliver to us. Some of us are angry that Canon is lagging so far behind in sensor development when compared with what Nikon and Sony are doing, some of us aren't. And that's how Canon stays #1, just like a drug dealer, get 'em when they're "young" and you've got them for life.

Lol if money was no object I would definitely have more gear! I'd keep my Canon stuff because I like it and am used to it, but I'd probably get a D810, a 645Z and an A6S when it's finally available :)

I did actually consider swapping to Nikon once, partly for the extra resolution in the D800 and partly because their super telephoto lenses were cheaper. It wouldn't have cost much, given resale on my gear, but the differences weren't enough for me to bother. But that, again, is down to our personal taste (I'd feel more like you if I felt my kit was really constraining what I wanted to do).

5
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:25:57 AM »
By the way, I know many people in a variety of fields who are very well compensated for what they do...and suck at it.

Lol, I was about to get riled by the "if you don't get paid for taking pictures, your opinions are invalid" falsehood, but you summed it up better and made me smile :)

What it seems to boil down to is this: the original premise was that Nikon's sensor superiority to Canon is so overwhelming that jumping ship is a no-brainer. Then some people pointed out that for what they do, it makes no sense, that Canon is as good or maybe even better for that. The response has been 'you're idiots, your technique sucks, you don't even get paid for this so you're talking rubbish'. But we're the irrational fanboys. Hmm.

6
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:13:45 AM »
...
I'm sure people took some great shots of birds on film John, I've seen them in books when I was as kiddy windy.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

The main difference here is that the BBC and National Geographic photographers aren't idiots that think ISO12800 is going to make up for shooting when the conditions favour the photographer. They're also patient in that they wait for the weather to give them the light they need or plan their photography so that the odds are in their favour.

I don't pretend to understand why neuro thinks it is a good idea or useful to shoot flying birds in cloudy conditions (or worse) but it sounds to me like he's confined his shooting to a corner where nobody can produce  a better camera system for what he does than the one he owns (or so he thinks.)

Why would anyone want to shoot birds flying when it is cloudy I don't know. Any colours that might be in/on the birds are going to be greatly subdued and unless you're shooting B&W, isn't the goal to get good colour?

That's the 'I don't want to shoot what you shoot, so why should you?' non-argument. Shooting under cloudy conditions is one example - not the only one (in dense woodland is another I've given). Shooting in overcast conditions can actually be more visually appealing, depending on a lot of things - it's lower contrast (we don't all like high contrast all the time) and the colours are generally less tinted (the light being whiter than direct sunlight, especially at the ends of the day). That's obviously my opinion, but your statement is just as subjective. Basically, we don't all have the same tastes, so if some of us want cameras to do something better for what we want, who are you to call it invalid?

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 10:57:35 AM »
Hey, I think the discussion has become a lot more reasonable and that's good. But I have to point out (as a fairly disinterested party - i.e. decidedly NOT a fanboy) what I perceive to be a double standard here. From what most people are saying, the low ISO difference (in most situations) is not that big.


So glad you posted this as I had an interesting shot today and i can illustrate it perfectly for you.

I shot a photographer today that I mentor, for his promo shots, and I had him lit as I wanted in my head. Here's the shot as I intended it, unprocessed. This is the 2nd shot with both strobes firing.

http://client.deanagar.com.au/correct.jpg

But, the first time, the camera right strobe didn't fire and I got this.

http://client.deanagar.com.au/misfire.jpg Useless?

When I looked at the misfire on the big screen, Rob and I thought it looked kinda cool. Extreme for sure, but he and I really liked it.

Is there anything else in there he asked? He's a Canon 6D, and 70D shooter, and we love each other in a male bonding type way, so my love of my Nikon d800 does not prevent me from loving dearly Canon owners.

After all, I was a Canon boy for a long time and have fond memories :-)

I raised the shadows in Aperture and it looked washed out. Oh well, no harm.

So then I tried raising the exposure in Aperture to +2.8 stops, and it looked pretty good.

I exported a 16 bit Psd of the original misfire, and a 16bit version of my raised exposure version, and did some blending.

I then messed with it in Silver Fx, added structure and lot of other stuff, then added a colour overlay in PS, to bring back colour to my now B/W shot.

I never intended this shot, I'll happily admit that, but it's the one he's going to use.

That DR and clean shadow detail at 100 iso is so useful in so many situations, even when the other equipment misfires.

You may or may not like this shot, but it wouldn't exist if I'd shot on a Canon today.

Here is an image of all three.

Top is the strobe misfire. Pretty useless one would assume. A reject if ever there was one. 2nd is the shot with both strobes as I intended.

Bottom is produced entirely from the top misfire shot.

http://client.deanagar.com.au/allthree.jpg


I quite like the shots, but that's by the by. It's an interesting story, but peripheral - occasionally I've liked shots that were mistakes, but you can hardly recommend a system on that basis (I think the big guys here would say something along the lines of "how often do you need to pull up a shot by X stops?" - this is a legitimate example, but surely rare). Plus, although I don't know anything about studio work, couldn't you have achieved the third shot by having just the one strobe fire, but much brighter?

But of course we're talking about two different worlds. I don't doubt your choices are excellent for studio and landscape work, and your results (photographic and financial) speak for themselves. But if you're telling me I should jump ship to Nikon for what I do (birds and macro above all) and if so I'll see a magical difference in my shots - I simply don't buy it.

8
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 07:47:47 AM »
I should mention also that I'd still like better high ISO. I was photographing a jay in very dense woodland once, and 12800 wasn't enough. Some will say don't bother - but that's another way of saying accept the limitations of your kit, but that's incompatible with the attitude 'nobody ever needs these settings'. Also, I most frequently shoot at f/10 now for birds - using the 500L+2x stopped down a little for sharpness. So even in the very brightest conditions I need moderate ISO (a white bird in flight in full sun still needed ISO 400!). Again, I'd like the freedom to take more shots (although an improvement in autofocus would also be required in this case).

Sorry if I'm drifting off topic a little...

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 07:42:07 AM »
My point is, and always has been, that the D800's IQ at 100 ISO kills anything Canon have, and it keeps up with Canon in many other regards, despite the massive resolution that should hinder it as the ISO increases.

All I was ever doing here was raising my concern that the big advantage of the D800 to a professional is dismissed here as if premium quality was of no use to anyone and that anyone who wanted that kind of quality was a freak and somehow limited in skill if they couldn't get the same results from a Canon.

That's fanboy horse S*@t and no mistake.

I do think that the Nikon lenses are hammered a little more than is correct though.

Hey, I think the discussion has become a lot more reasonable and that's good. But I have to point out (as a fairly disinterested party - i.e. decidedly NOT a fanboy) what I perceive to be a double standard here. From what most people are saying, the low ISO difference (in most situations) is not that big. So, it shouldn't 'kill' Canon files. On the other hand, you're saying that Nikon's lenses aren't that much worse - which is true (again, from what I've heard). So an unreasonable exaggeration anti-Canon and a reasonable assessment anti-anti-Nikon. You can see why some people might find that problematic?

Quote from: zigzagzoe
12800 wasn't even a possibility not long ago, and in film, an impossibility, and now we have photographers with such a low skill level they require it simply to get their shot.

The skill of moving with the subject, a staple of F1 and other sports photographers for decades, has seemingly disappeared in the digital age if you want me to take you bird example seriously?

I can't speak on motorsports, but I can say that advancing technology has indeed allowed for shots of wildlife that could not have been taken before. Better autofocus, better high ISO, and lower weight super telephoto lenses amongst other things. We can take kit to more awkward places (because it weighs less), photograph subjects at dawn and dusk, under trees, or in very overcast conditions (because of better low light capability), etc. Not that great wildlife shots weren't taken in the past, but we are freer now. That's a good thing.

ISO 12800 is an extreme, but 6400 is fairly reasonable for, e.g. small birds in flight in the shade/on a cloudy day. I find it a useful technique to overexpose (without clipping the highlights) then pull the exposure down to reduce shadow noise - so the final shot may have the appearance of a 3200 exposure, but I need a useable 6400 to get there.

Quote from: zigzagzoe
The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

Not a good comparison. First, the resolution at HD is 2MP - i.e. less than 1/10th the 5D3's sensor, let alone the D800. Downsizing to 2MP will reduce the appearance of noise. I bet some of the footage in low light is indeed at higher ISO. I doubt it would register on screen (even a massive HD tv) except with very high settings. Second, video is not the same as stills. For clean video (I am told), you want frame exposure times of 1/50-1/100 (for smooth motion). You can have motion blur in video frames with no problem, so that's okay. For a clean still of a bird in flight, you'd want between 1/1600 and 1/2500 I would say. That's a lot less light (4 or 5 stops)!

10
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:40:13 PM »
Quote from: neuroanatomist link=topic=21931.msg419142#msg419142
Ok, but you'll have to excuse yourself from that debate.  When you make statements like, "[i
With over 14 stops at 100 ISO (14.8 at 32ISO on the D810 it would appear),[/i]" 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 nearly mentioned this, because I thought I'd heard it before, but I'm not confident enough to talk about these things. I'm glad you did :) As you say, it's a system that matters, not one element.

It's funny how the people accusing folk of being 'fanboys' are the ones making the most extreme sweeping statements like Canon's offerings are 'blown away' by competitors. It's not as if we're even talking about fundamental differences - just fairly minor incremental improvements.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 29, 2014, 02:23:00 PM »
I'd love this! Can it be added with a firmware update, or is there some reason why the 1Dx can do it but not, say, the 5DIII?

12
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 01:56:55 PM »
I've no doubt that the D800 and D810 are good for landscape work - having all those extra megapixels, and I don't think anyone here disputes that Nikon is better at base ISO (I only know this from reading this forum). They may well be the best full frame cameras for this purpose, I don't know (I don't do much landscape work).

But to claim Canon is bad at ISO 100 is hyperbole. And to claim the 5D3 is 'painterly' at ISO 800 (or just over) is... perplexing. It's a subjective term of course. But the raw files look good much higher than that - depending on what and how you shoot. I find bird photos can look okay up to ISO 6400-8000 - using the technique of slightly overexposing and then reducing the brightness later (to reduce shadow noise) - and I'm very happy with results at ISO 3200.

As for the shots linked to, I loved the second one, but the one with the jetty was... not to my taste. That's fine, it's stylistic, and I'm happy with people who love their gear. But to trash other people's choices based on that opinion is unwise. After all, if the D800 was so obviously superior, why did it not sell so well (again, something I've seen repeated here often).

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 22, 2014, 01:52:15 PM »
I'm sure mammals require more effort (staying downwind, etc), but I've never attempted to photograph them.

Mammals can be easy.  They let you get nice and close sometimes.  Just make sure any bunnies you try to take pictures aren't from Caerbannog...

I'm afraid I had to look up that reference :-[

I have done rabbits, actually. They used to forage in front of a fixed bird hide at my local nature reserve. Feral British rabbits always seen very timid otherwise, though.


14
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 22, 2014, 08:23:07 AM »
We have run into the better vs. best (budget vs. money-no-object) argument once more. There ain't no way of solving this. Yes, equipment matters. Yes, fieldcraft matters. Yes, technique matters. Next question?

Well, MY next question is how many of us wear ghillie suits like Jrista describes vs. just plain camo vs. blind vs. no blind and no camo? How many people use camo covers on their lenses ("Lens Coat" or other)? How many use products that claim to suppress human odors?

Maybe wildlife in the UK is more used to people - I've never felt the need for camouflage gear. I did get a portable bird hide, but it's too bulky to carry along with my camera gear, so I never use it. I tend to photograph whatever birds I encounter - only going after particular species occasionally - so it's more a matter of walking miles and hoping to bump into something good.

Species vary a lot, of course. Woodpigeon are common around people, but maybe because they're a legal quarry here, they tend to fly off the moment you point a big lens at them. Other tiny birds, like goldcrests, don't seem to care even if you get within a few feet.

I'm sure mammals require more effort (staying downwind, etc), but I've never attempted to photograph them.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Eos7D mk2, How EXCITED will you be if . . .?
« on: July 20, 2014, 06:40:55 AM »
On top of this, these animals come closer during crepuscular hours, and the 7D just falls flat here with noisy, rough RAW files.


I found the AF somewhat more consistent, but I absolutely agree the 7D is a good light camera.  I cringed when the ISO went above 800.  I barely blink when my 1D X hits ISO 6400.


Not just the 1D X. I shot these at ISO 12800 in at-sunset/post-sunset light on the 5D III (I have to say, I was blown away by the fact that these came out as well as they did...people who complain about the 5D III, it's dynamic range, or its overall performance haven't put one through it's paces):








Those are lovely, especially the first one. And they demonstrate one thing a longer lens and greater subject distance gives you (with caveats) - a nicer background. People arguing one must get close for good photos ignore this aspect. Those bear shots further up the thread were good, but the background was nowhere near as blurred. Obviously the distance of the subject from the background is a determining factor, but assuming it's the same, a longer lens from a greater distance will blur things better than a wider-angle lens from a closer distance (I mean, I *suppose* one could try and use a really wide aperture lens like the 200 f/2 to even things out, but I still find the best blurred backgrounds are produced by the longest focal lengths - 1000mm f/10 beats 100mm f/2.8, except maybe at macro distances).

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12