Messages

1

Pricewatch Deals / Re: Canon EOS Rebel SL1 in Stock at B&H Photo

« on: May 03, 2013, 10:46:24 PM »

Has anyone figured out if this is a new sensor with better noise characteristics? DXOMark says the T5i has identical performance to the T4i...not that I believe DXOMark testing fairly represents image quality in absolute terms... I would just expect them to show different results with a new sensor. Is the SL1 using the same sensor as the T5i?

Is the SL1 sensor supposed to be the same as the t5i?

2

Lenses / Re: I have just lost confidence with Canon Rumors & B&H

« on: April 17, 2013, 10:16:23 AM »

over reacting much?

No I don't think I'm over reacting. I got the lower price and my lens is in transit. I find it offensive that a new "better deal" is being hyped, that is not a better deal, and when I point this out, my post is blocked. Do you understand that logic?

Wow... you saved 2.3% woop-de-do. Hardly a big deal.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 12, 2013, 01:02:57 PM »

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will  look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

Just out of curiosity, I set up a similar comparison on the DPR site and there is very little difference between the images.  IMO, none of the three cameras (D800, 5DII and 5DIII) produces a decent image at 12800.  All your test shows is that you can take two perfectly good cameras and make bad images with them and argue about which is worst.  I would rather make two optimal images and compare that -- no rules; you can do whatever you want.  That is, after all, how the equipment is actually used in real life.

this is 5dmk3 and d800 at 25000iso
the resolution is higher from the nikon
as I have been writing earlier, Im surprised about the d800 high iso capability

To me, this makes more sense as it is closer to what I am used to seeing in comparisons I have made --  not that I spend a lot of time on such endeavors but I am curious like everyone else.  I look at the two cameras from the images provided by the review sites, from the perspective of the measurement data on DxO, B. Claff, Sensorgen etc. and once you get the gain up so the low ISO read noise s out of the picture (pun intended, I guess), the images are comparable (IMO).  Most of the time (in practice) I would never run it at 12800 anyway and as you dial it down closer to the reality of where I would run it, moves even closer, which was my real point.  I am not surprised that the Nikon is that good, IMO, the measurement data says it should be.

4

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 10:42:39 PM »

Photographer is a nebulous term. There is no standard definition... there is no certification or levels.... there is no governing body and there is no rating system of specialties. For example, I could be the world's greatest bird photographer and the worst imaginable wedding photographer... I know people so good that they can effortlessly snap off a shot that I would have to take time to prepare for.... and that "snapshooter" would get a better picture than me. I also know "experts" whose photographs are "somewhat less than stellar".

In the absence of standards, like it or not, anyone who uses a camera is a photographer and the question of if they are good or bad comes down to opinion.

Well, I have no problem with calling a photographer whoever is pretending to be one, but it doesn't make their photographs any better. The problem rises when they start asking money for it, just like that monkey 

One of the problems is that it isn't even clear which is the best photograph..... Hypothetical situation.... a cougar is sighted "down by the stream". Neuro, my Neice, and I head off to get a picture.... Neuro with a 1Dx and a 600F4, me with a 60D and a 70-200, and my neice with an iPod. Neuro finds a nice vantage spot and shoots of a couple hundred perfect pictures..... I work my way downstream and get a couple hundred pictures of the cougar nicely framed in front of a waterfall, but because of the distance my pictures are heavily cropped. My neice got bored and waited in the car. When we get back to town and process the pictures the great debate starts.... which is the better picture? Neuro's are definitly sharper and more pixels on target, but mine are more artisticly framed....and while we argue my neice sells the 30 iPod pictures of bigfoot, that she took while waiting in the car, to a tabloid.

So which is better? Technical, artistic, or commercial sucess?

That depends on a buyer, I guess.

P.S. So, who was pretending to be a bigfoot, you or Neuro?

And more importantly, why does sasquatches only live in US?

Taxes are lower.

5

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 10:41:45 PM »

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will  look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

Just out of curiosity, I set up a similar comparison on the DPR site and there is very little difference between the images.  IMO, none of the three cameras (D800, 5DII and 5DIII) produces a decent image at 12800.  All your test shows is that you can take two perfectly good cameras and make bad images with them and argue about which is worst.  I would rather make two optimal images and compare that -- no rules; you can do whatever you want.  That is, after all, how the equipment is actually used in real life.

6

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 09:02:37 PM »

So David, please dont tell me that there are any differences between the two sensor, and now at 12800iso, we all know the difference at base iso and DR.
If you will  look at the rawfiles I can send them to you

I never said that there was no difference.  Don't need raw files, I have looked at RAW files in the past.

7

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 01:44:47 PM »

David, I have compared 5dmk2 with 5dmk3 (and so have others) and what do you think about the high iso reproduction.
I took this pictures few minutes ago, and it is 5dmk2 12800iso and d800
what has impressed   me is the d800 high iso reproduction
When the 5dmk3 came out I did a lot of comparison and did not se any big advantage regarding high iso compared to 5dmk2 , what I saw was something who looks like  pre cocked 5dmk3 raw files compared to 5dmk2 with less visual noise but not more details .
here is 12800 iso   and both cameras  metering  system gave the same value time and f-stop  and they are  exposed the same= 1/640sec F1,4 and handled in CR the same= high lights information and shadows details, the d800 file are downsized to 5dmk2

What is the point of downsizing?  I think that your test is biased in favor of the Nikon since downsizing will make the noise look better.  The problem with Nikon for me is that they came along with too little, too late.  If they had had the best camera when I bought the 20D 8 years ago, I would be a Nikon shooter but they did not.

As for what do I think about your test?  The Nikon image looks better, but I know nothing about what that means in the real world, how big are you going to print the image, what is it used for, am I allowed to make that same image at ISO 100 using a tripod with the 5DII, etc., etc.?  This is yet another example of a contrived test, purpose built to make the tester’s point.  I could take that same 5DII, change the settings, put it on a tripod if need be and make an image that would blow your D800 image out of the water. You could do the same with the D800 and get a better image as well.  In the end when both cameras were optimally used, the images would probably be indistinguishable.  IMO, there is nothing about this image that requires a D800.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 01:20:11 PM »

No, not grasping at straws, just simply considering all of the lenses that are available for a camera. If you want to limit yourself to only those lenses that the camera vendor makes, fine, but don't impose those restrictions on others.

There are many fine lenses that are made for use on Canon/Nikon that are not made by Canon/Nikon.

The grasping at straws part was more about the fact that considering the Sigma 35/1.4 gets you barely a marginal improvement, as I said - throwing away 13 MP instead of 14 MP.

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

And with Nikon, that might be <wait 4 weeks> "Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again."<wait 4 weeks> "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again."<wait 4 weeks> la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles.

In a sense?  No need for a qualifier there.  As I've stated before, people buy cameras not sensors.  Their reasons for choosing one camera over another are as varied as the people themselves.  Canon recognizes that people buy cameras, not naked sensors, and they design their cameras accordingly.  The fact that they continue to outsell Nikon across the lineup quite clearly indicates that they know what they're doing in terms of camera design (including the sensor). 

Saying 'it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera' is an unrealistic over-generalization.  The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor.  It's that sort of attitude that raises hackles around here, and for good reason - it's complete crap.  If you want to peddle that line of BS, try a Nikon forum...I'm sure you'd be welcomed with open arms.

"The problem is that some people seem to suggest that simply because the sensor in a Nikon camera offers a couple of extra stops of DR, that means the IQ of the sensor in a Canon camera is unacceptably poor."

I absolutely agree and this is the primary reason that I jump into these discussions.  IMO those who make these sorts of comments are either clueless, have some sort of personal agenda to grind or… they just haven’t figured out how to use a camera yet.
 
I have no issue with someone commenting that the Canon Read Noise is worse or the Sony/Nikon DR is better (or the resolution is better one way or the other if that is your hot-button) but this broad generalization that somehow Canon Image Quality is worse in some sort of general sense is utter nonsense, it generates unnecessary FUD which has no place whatsoever on a forum where people hopefully want to get to the facts to make educated decisions (or just understand how the damn thing works).  It is my opinion that in the general sense of the mostly undefined concept of “IQ” most current cameras are pretty much equal.
 

9

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 11:58:53 AM »

You're not listening (and/or perhaps you didn't properly comprehend what I wrote.)

All that mattered was that one camera had a touch screen and the other didn't. MP be damned.

Ok, I hold my hands up. I didn't properly comprehend what you wrote. However, your anti Canon stance on this forum frankly has become a tad tedious, and I don't think I speak solely for myself when I say that. I am not for a moment saying that we shouldn't complain or raise issue with things that we dislike about Canon cameras. But the manner of some of your postings suggests you have some grudge against Canon. Or am I again misunderstanding you?

If I was going to have a grudge, it would be because of something it them taking 4 tries to Canon's lens repair service to fix the IS in a 70-300 IS USM (non-L).

"Yeah we fixed it", "No you haven't, try again." "Fixed it this time.", "Put on a camera and it didn't work, try again." la la la

No, the point of me saying this is because lots of people are arguing that "Canon cameras sell well, so obviously 18MP is enough" or "... so obviously the DR isn't important." In a sense they're right, but it appears that it isn't the IQ that is selling the camera - it is the bells and whistles. When the reason for choosing a 650D over something else is the touch screen, then as long as the camera has enough pixels for facebook and WiFi to upload, well who cares about PASM, etc?

At the entry level, that is probably true, since the IQ is good enough for what most people want to do with it.  However even at the enthusiast level, the differences in the so-called "IQ" of these cameras aren’t sufficiently different to matter as much as the differences in the overall systems.  Or, for that matter, the cost of changing systems or the inconvenience of adding a Nikon body and lens kit to a Canon system just to get 6 dB additional SNR in the deepest shadows and then ONLY if your gain is set at ISO=100.

I recently changed out my 5DII for a 5DIII with full knowledge (having participated in these threads for years) of the so-called "IQ" differences, what they stem from and what they mean to real world camera performance for the sorts of things I generally do.  It would have cost me $10k to add a D800 and a couple of “L” equivalent Nikon lenses good enough to make good use of all its capabilities.  Similarly it would have cost me around $15k to change systems (leaving the Devil I know for the Devil I don’t so-to-speak).  So... I am going to do that for 6 dB more SNR at ISO 100 and 15 more MP (along with larger files, slower frame rate etc.)?  It doesn’t even make sense.  I don’t think that I am alone in this perspective, even at what seems to be an elevated price, the 5DIII (despite its mostly imagined IQ deficiencies) seems to be selling quite well (particularly now that the street price seems to have dropped).

10

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 11, 2013, 01:51:25 AM »

Overheard today:

"My wife wants to buy Canon because it has touch screen."

i.e. for her that is the killer feature of the Canon 650 and it is things like this that let Canon get away with not improving IQ.

Canon are adding bells and whistles to their camera rather than improving its abilities to take better photos.

The real answer to that is the so-called "IQ" of the Canon equipment is essentially the same as that of Nikon (Pentax, Sony, Oly..., pick your favorite).  The output of the equipment when used properly will be essentially indistinguishable.  So she was correct, pick the gear based on price and feature set. 

It is anyone’s guess as to why Canon has not bothered to make changes to their implementation but one valid guess is that they see no urgent need to fix something that isn’t really broke.  Canon is successful because the equipment does an admirable job of producing stunning images that can hold their own against any of the rest.   

11

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 10, 2013, 01:48:42 AM »

Do you really want to see what happens when you go from a 20 or 22 megapixel sensor to a 46 megapixel sensor? Do you want to see how the lens affects sensor sharpness? Take your lens, mount it on your FF camera, take a photo that shows off sharpness. Then take that lens, mount it on a Rebel, and do the same. You will find that only lenses of superior sharpness will give you a sharp image on your Rebel...... and that is what will happen when you go full frame high megapixel....

Unless you have a camera bag full of the finest L-glass, you can rant on and on about which sensor and which camera outresolves who..... but out in the real world most people have bought into a SYSTEM.... and by far the most important part and the most expensive part of that system is the glass....

You can take the crappiest Nikon DSLR, put a high end lens on it, and it will outresolve the finest Canon camera with a kit lens. Likewise, take the crappiest Canon, put on some high end L-glass, and it will outresolve the finest Nikon with a kit lens.

You want to know the order of things?
#1 - photographer
#2 - glass
#3 - camera

..... and the glass is an investment while the camera can be best thought of as expendable.

Sorry for the rant, but this thread has degenerated into another DXO/SENSOR/NIKON/CANON arguefest, most of which has nothing to do with the topic at hand..

Yep... I don't know why people can't figure this out.  This sort of thinking used to be common sense in teh film days.

+1 for sure.

12

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 09, 2013, 12:09:17 PM »

Could someone please provide a list of sites or publications that have done side-by-side comparisons of Canon's 18mp sensor to the sensors being used in Nikon's new generation of crop-frame cameras.

There seem to be a lot of drama queens here who pontificate on how much better the new generation of Nkons are, but when I've looked at sample images, I either see no discernible difference or, at higher ISOs, a little bit better performance from Canon.

A handful of individuals on this site keep trashing the performance of the 18mp sensor and others are repeating it as fact. Since this is a site adored by gearheads, how about some objective third-party comparisons?

The primary issue is the fact that the Canon implementation does not produce the same dynamic range as the latest Nikons as a result of increased “read-out” noise at low ISO.  Most of this argument is stimulated by the DxO test results for dynamic range which you can find on their site.  In addition, as one guy has pointed out, this noise tends to manifest patterns that the Nikon gear does not have.  Whether this matters to you or not, depends on what you need to do with the camera.  If the nature of what you shoot and your PP workflow requires that you consistently lift shadows a couple stops, then you may run into this issue, otherwise it is probably no big deal.

The way I look at it, the Canon gear as presently implemented, does not offer the same latitude for exposure correction that some of the later Nikon stuff does.  You can search the web for Canon 5DII banding and you will see a lot of examples.  You need to decide whether this is a problem or not in your opinion, related to your own photography.  I have sort of a funny perspective on it which is that (IMO anyway), most of the examples show what you can do if you use the Canon gear incorrectly.  In almost every case where a comparison is given, if the Canon gear were used properly the same image could be made with both.  Now for the artsy fartsy part: IMO, in most cases, the image wasn’t worth making in the first place -- it is nothing more than an example of what happens if you push the canon into the region where it doesn’t work well.  Basically, “doc… it hurts when I do this” to which the doc replies, “don’t do that”.  Unfortunately there are some cases where you have to “do that” in which case… for now anyway, go buy a Nikon.

I ground through this thought process myself recently and then bought a 5DIII.  In the end I thought that the things that they DID improve were worth the upgrade to me and any sensor deficiencies were easy to work around.  I had a 5DII (probably the worst offender in the "banding" department) and never had problems with the so-called "issue".  I am not saying that they don't need to fix it, but I would rather that they take their time and do it right (don't break something else in the process -- as sometimes happens).

13

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 04:39:46 PM »

I would love to see Canon improve their performance in this area and I am sure that they will, but I have no interest in improvement for improvement's sake which is how I read many of these comments.
 
As I said, I have yet to see anything put up as an example of what you can do with Sony/Nikon that I couldn't replicate with Canon gear.  I don't see any game-changing impact on the state of current "ART" as a result of it.  I see excellent photographers doing inspiring work with both systems.  This technology has been around for a while and I have yet to see anything come out of it that makes me say… “OMG, I need to put all my Canon stuff up on e-bay and convert to Nikon so I can do this work”.

So, yes from a technology perspective, improve it please, but from a photographic perspective, for me at least, it is sort of a “non-starter”.

OK, a perfectly rational sentiment.
I'm similarly hoping Canon will improve in this one area tho. I still use my older Canon bodies for lots of shots, but I pull out the exmors when I know I'll be pushing the dark areas, cuz there are times I do need that unbanded performance.  It's not all about DR, it's about the quality of that DR.  And the ballyhoo over the 5d2 was, in my case, all for naught, as it was a very poor performer for my uses, left a bad after-taste.  Improvements are inching along tho, 5d3's better and 6d looks pretty good so far.  Might even buy one.

I think it will get fixed eventually since:

1. I don't think Canon is going to go too long with a potential image quality deficiency even if it is pretty much a corner case.

2. It costs them something in terms of material cost, battery life and physical size to incorporate the separate chip AFE that they use in all their cameras.  They will feel the pain on the low end first in terms of the Rebels and things like the SL 1 where cost, size and battery life are paramount.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 12:23:13 PM »

Guys, I'll probably ask a very naive and somewhat a silly question... What exactly is the difference between different generations of Canon sensors? I mean, let's say Canon 5d ii and iii share the same sensor (correct?) however 5d iii overall has a better signal/noise ratio. That means that the improvements in the image quality do not necessarily require a new sensor technology? So, why do we all want Canon to have a new generation of sensors in their DSLR? Just curios 

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.  Ask yourself this:  have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo?  If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Something else you might want to ask yourself:  If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed?  Where are the stunning examples of what can be done?  Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point?  Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

If this represents such a huge advance in the state of the art of making art, where the heck is the art?  Galeries won't hang your DxO curves.

yup, that under-acheiver, don't fix it cuz it's not all broke, set-the-bar-low attitude's gonna get you some spankin' new sensor system R&D fo' sho!'
seriously, whatsamaddawitchyoo?
why you no want improvements?

I would love to see Canon improve their performance in this area and I am sure that they will, but I have no interest in improvement for improvement's sake which is how I read many of these comments.
 
As I said, I have yet to see anything put up as an example of what you can do with Sony/Nikon that I couldn't replicate with Canon gear.  I don't see any game-changing impact on the state of current "ART" as a result of it.  I see excellent photographers doing inspiring work with both systems.  This technology has been around for a while and I have yet to see anything come out of it that makes me say… “OMG, I need to put all my Canon stuff up on e-bay and convert to Nikon so I can do this work”.

So, yes from a technology perspective, improve it please, but from a photographic perspective, for me at least, it is sort of a “non-starter”.
 

15

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]

« on: April 08, 2013, 12:09:15 PM »

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.

I think it is more that people look at the improvements Nikon has delivered and the price point at which they have delivered and when they look at Canon they're left thinking "WTF am I buying Canon?"

I don't disagree here.  I am not sure why Canon seems to be cranking up the prices lately.  I was a bit surprised that the 5DIII came out where it did.  If I were starting out now, I might start with Nikon however, that is not an automatic “given” since IMO Canon’s lenses are better.  Those who put such stock in DxO measurements might want to notice that the 5DIII coupled with any of their latest lenses out performs the D800 when it is coupled with the Nikon equivalents.  Not that I think that matters too much but when you consider a camera you are buying into a system and with the exception of read noise which only impacts low ISO shooting (and is easy to work around in most cases) the two systems look pretty much equivalent.

Ask yourself this:  have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo?  If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Most of the time you don't need to because it is written underneath the artwork.

But if it weren't you would be hard pressed to tell.

Something else you might want to ask yourself:  If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed?  Where are the stunning examples of what can be done?  Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point?  Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

To pick one gallery, that exhibiting the work of the principal behind www.luminous-landscape.com, I imagine that the work being displayed has changed over time from being dominated by Canon sourced material to Sony/Nikon material if what he displays on the web is anything to go buy (and the fact that he no longer owns any Canon DSLRs.) Information about his gallery is at:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/about/gallery.shtml

If you read enough of the essays from professional photographers that write for the above mentioned website then you start to realise that Canon no longer features like it used to as a tool used by artists, never mind photojournalists, etc.

Yea... so what... Michael Reichmann likes Sony; he has his reasons and states them on his website.  For every “Luminous Landscape” I can point you to some Canon photographer doing excellent work as well.  Look up Pete Souza, there is a guy who could probably talk his boss into buying him any equipment he wants yet he chooses to shoot with a 5DIII (previously a 5DII) and... IMO he does absolutely excellent work (If you don't like Obama go back and look at his work with Reagan).   There are plenty of others.  Everyone has an opinion but the fact remains that great work is being done with all of these systems and the fact that Nikon’s current gear performs a bit better in a few corner cases doesn’t seem to be changing that much.