September 02, 2014, 01:56:25 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 236
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 11:02:43 PM »
No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

No.

Quote
Highlight Tone Priority (HTP)
All cameras have a fixed dynamic range, from shadow to highlight, that they can capture. HTP shifts some of the available dynamic range from the mid-tones to the highlights to produce smoother tones, with more detail in bright areas. This helps prevent JPEG images with overexposed highlights that can’t be recovered. HTP is also useful to RAW shooters who process their images with Canon’s DPP software. Most third-party RAW processing software will not recognize Highlight Tone Priority.
When the camera is set to HTP, the lowest available ISO will be 200. The HTP setting will be indicated by a D+ symbol in the LCD display. Avoid using HTP in low light or when shooting subjects with heavy shadows because it may cause more noise to appear in those areas.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_EOS_Cfn_QuickGuide.pdf

No, all it does is underexpose 1 stop secretly and then shift the mid-tone point and roll off highlights differently for in-cam jps and it sets a flag to tell RAW converters to do the same. You can get the exact same thing out of underexposing 1 stop and then using an altered tone curve.

2
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:22:43 PM »
It's really a shame that CR sets the site apparently optimized for only 640 across or maybe 800 at best, especially for forest stuff.

3
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: September 01, 2014, 10:10:20 PM »
Having just lost half of my favorite forest to clear-cutting it's a bit painful or bittersweet to post forest stuff now and I didn't get most of that stuff uploaded yet, but I do have some so:


x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x


ok, flickr stopped loading previews, it's slow at the moment so that's that for now

4
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: September 01, 2014, 08:43:11 PM »
Maybe they are trying to get users to lock into just a few more lenses before it turns out the 7D2,5D4,1DX2 still use older sensor tech.... (at least in very small part, or as an added bonus)

Yeah, because there no way all the amazing images taken with that 'older sensor tech' will convince anyone to consider Canon.

DOn't forget that a number of the user surveys that Canon has sent out have had questions along the lines of: how trapped do you feel by your lens collection, do you think it's too expensive to switch systems, etc.

5
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:37:02 PM »
The price drops are not about competition they speak volumes about the fall in new camera purchases these normally spark lens purchases even if some of these lenses are specialist. Canon are trying to find ways to stimulate the market in two weeks time were get a clearer picture at Photokina when GfK publish market data about the state of the industry which has been in contraction.

Maybe they are trying to get users to lock into just a few more lenses before it turns out the 7D2,5D4,1DX2 still use older sensor tech.... (at least in very small part, or as an added bonus)


6
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:35:48 PM »
Just browsed the Canon refurb page.

EF 24-70 f/4L IS USM Refurbished $799.99 (in stock, price drop)

EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM Refurbished $919.20

Now that is truly bizarre, considering that the 24-70 f/4 IS is a better lens in just about every possible regard (size, weight, resistance to longitudinal CA, resistance to later CA, distortion, edge and corner sharpness, close focusing distance, IS quality) the only thing it loses on is 71-105mm (or more realistically call it 85-105mm since does 70mm vs 80mm really matter much much less 70mm vs 71mm). Not to mention as well that it's easy to find brand new white box 24-105 for as low as $600, so who would pay $920 for a refurb 24-105L. I mean you have the superior 24-70 f/4 IS for only a few bucks more new and for less as refurb and the 24-105 all over forums and ebay for hundreds less, for true new not refurb.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 01:06:10 AM »
When the 70D came out the Canon world was shocked with DPAF. That was July 2013.... DSLR launches since then - zero.

Something is coming..... and not "more of the same"....

If all the 7D2 is, is a 70D with slightly better specs, the same sensor, and a better autofocus system, it would have been out by now. Something is coming that required changing the underlying technology....

I think DPAF was the tip of the iceberg and we are in for a surprise.

I think it might be more along the lines of a super-souped up DPAF that assists phase AF and allows for nearly 100% in focus rates more than improved image quality (aside from the in focus aspect), but who knows. I fit is 20.2 MP that seems to hit more towards this, but maybe the specs are wrong, so far they have all been wrong.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:17:12 PM »
Exactly.  It's a totally ridiculous and untenable assertion that the low ISO differences between SoNikon and Canon sensors mean that the former can deliver excellent images whereas the latter deliver subpar or unusable images. 

I've come to expect such DRivel from the usual sources (old and new), but I must admit it's rather disappointing when otherwise apparently logical people start spouting the same sort of crap.

And yet such words have ONLY be typed here by Skulker, Keith, dtaylor, yourself and the like.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:15:46 PM »
If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

And yet IN REALITY, from waht I see most of us can be quoted from this thread as having said that you can find an infinite number of subejcts where ytou could take great shots with Canon.

But it seems the other side tries to make it sound like there are zero times having more DR could ever help to any degree taht would matter.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:13:56 PM »
I never said Canon cameras were not useful. That's what all the other DRones say.

Actually it is not what the 'DROnes' say. It's what neuro and Keith and friends say (attributing it to the other side, but nobody ever actually says such words, with maybe the most extreme rarest exception, other than the defends of Canon's sacred honor crowd).

Quote
What I am saying is that the arguments put forth in defense of Canon are frequently fallacies or other tactics that mislead. Sure, you can get away with using Canon equipment. I do myself.

exactly



Quote
However...Canon has shown no clear initiative to improve their low ISO capabilities. Not everyone on the face of the planet shoots at high ISO.

Exactly, so even if some were to go off the deep end about it, how would that a bad thing? Isn't giving the company that a makes a cam which you otherwise like a push something good when it seems like said company sure needs the push? If the company whose products you use gets egged on into improving is that supposed to be bad?






11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 09:05:31 PM »
The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.

The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...

Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic  than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one  should ever need more DR.

Conversely, some people (not referring to you) take a single factor of camera system performance, promote the idea that better performance in that factor is of such paramount importance that no other aspect of camera system performance has relevance, and then proceed as if that one factor which is important to them is critical for everyone, so much so that lesser performance in that metric spells 'doom' for a particular brand.

Those same people sometimes obsess over trying to prove their point, and post their views rampantly, even in threads which have nothing to do with that issue. 

Ultimately, people vote with their wallets.  Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

More often there is a thread specifically about sensors or DR or banding and the same set of Canon defenders always comes in and jumps all over and starts going on about how none of the stuff really ever matters, or it's only apparent to lab geeks, or learn how to expose moron, etc. and then if that fails a good bit of but don't you know that there is more to a camera than one aspect, yeah of course we knows, but this thread was about the sensor! We don't fill up threads going on about how amazing the 24 T&S II or 100L or 24-70 II are and say yeah but who cares since the DR is behind.

Back when Canon sensors were basically the best at everything I played them up as the best at everything. And when they had a bit lower spec bodies then I wasn't afraid to admit it. When Canon had poor wide angle lenses I wasn't afraid to bring that up and now that they have many great FF standard and wide lenses I am not afraid to sing their praises. When the 5D3 had good fps and AF I didn't hide it. When the 24-70 II came out I praised it like crazy and I didn't even blanch at Canon's pricing of it, I was like hey this ZOOM basically matches my 24 1.4 II prime (aside from distortion) and it is nearly true APO. I sold my 7D to fund my 5D3, but I don't make up garbage to defend my 5D3 and say that the 7D never gave me anything that my 5D3 can't and that I didn't ever get a reach advantage from it. My 5D3 is good at some things and frustratingly behind in others. When it arrived I wasn't afraid to knock it for having blurry video and extremely low detail in shadows or low contrast areas. When ML RAW came out for it I wasn't afraid to then say that the RAW video out of it wasn't truly stunning and far better than anything you could get out of a Nikon.

I don't try to defend my purchases. I just try to call it as I see it. If it does things much better I say it, if it does things much worse I say it.

But an entire brigade goes around and hassles anyone who ever dares bring up that something isn't the best and hounds them and calls them incompetent moron photographers or lab geeks or clueless and tell them to go out and shoot (if they even know how) and toss subtle insults all over and mocks them and they try to downplay and hide and minimize any findings and yeah maybe DxO overall ratings are curious shall we say but then they also toss out and trash all the generally valid individual plot info. And many good posters have been driven from the forums and some are still around and maybe we've become to annoying and testy at this point but maybe many of us got pushed to it although maybe we should better let the nonsense just brush off.

And maybe some bits get overblow and this or that, but come on.

If we didn't know that Canon has a nice UI and lenses and, with ML only, some really good video (although they may fall way behind on 4k soon it sounds like) we maybe wouldn't care to even bother posting in Canon forums.  But at the end of the day, going to the nth degree to defend any last aspect whatever brand is behind on, helps nobody and if some aspect even were overblown, it could only help the users of that product in the end anyway.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:50:29 PM »
The reasoning of downplaying the importance of DR to the point of 'We don't need a better DR sensor because canon doesn't have one' eludes me.

The reasoning doubtless eludes you because nobody's actually doing that.

More disingenuous "spinning" to push an agenda and score cheap points...

Don't paint me as a troll, I don't have any agenda to push, nor points to score. For what it's worth, I only shoot canon myself and have never really liked any nikon body I shot with.

The point I was making is that in a discussion like this one people seem to want to defend the fact that their brand is worse at some characteristic  than a competing brand by dismissing the importance of that characteristic, like claiming that people who run into canon's shadow banding are bad photographers, or no one  should ever need more DR.

+1

And the whole reason many of the 'DRoners' keep going on endlessly about it because the defenders of the scared honor of Canon constantly

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:46:40 PM »

To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky. 

Yep - but with all due respect to him, he's not the final arbiter of what can and cannot be achieved with a Canon file - I've been a number of examples from Jon which immediately made me think "Hmmm... That's not a very good job", because, like a lot on here, he seems wedded to a single converter. Some of the stuff on his own website has made me scratch my head about the image quality he's achieving with his bird photography, too.

The simple fact (and I use the word advisedly) is this: DPP (for example) can pull clean detail out of the shadows of Canon low ISO files in a way which - blind tested (been there, done that) - isn't that far from similarly "cranked" Sonikon sensor files. 

There's more than one way to skin the low ISO DR cat...

But even the examples we're discussing are - in the great scheme of things - unlikely to represent the kind of photograph which most of us are taking on a regular basis, and it's actually good design and good business for a manufacturer not to expend time, money and effort building in capability which - realistically, whether the DR whiners like it or not - is only going to be of "niche" value.

And on DPR it was shown that DPP was smearing things out and maybe you had a bit less noise and fixed pattern banding, but you had no details or smooth changes either and DPP also didn't let one pull up as much and it is worse at saving highlights, etc. etc.

14
Lenses / Re: Canon Price Drops on L Lenses
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:12:05 PM »
The price on the 24-70 f/4 should have been under $1K from the get-go. No way did it feel or perform like a $1500 lens.

OTOH the 24-105L list wasn't much less and that performed much worse (especially at 24mm). Of course 24-105 street had fallen like crazy.

The 24-70 f/4 IS had been on sale for $1000 every few months or so for a long time. It does make sense to lock it there. It's really going to make the places listing 24-105 for $1200 look beyond absurd though now. That was beyond absurd already. I guess 24-105 is now discontinued (replaced by 24-70 f/4 IS as I had been saying).

15
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Deal: Canon EF 24-70 f/4L IS $999 at Adorama
« on: August 31, 2014, 06:09:05 PM »
To be fair, on a cosmic time scale the entirety of human existence has been 'for a very limited time'...   ;)

When I hear the phrase 'available for a limited time only', I sometimes think of the ad campaign for the McRib sandwich. It is for the good of The Entirety of Human Existence that the McDonalds McRib sandwich is usually available for a limited time only.

Wasn't the 24-70 f4/L overpriced at 1.5K?

It was, but it was regularly on sale for $1025 or so. I paid that for one more than a year ago.
I just sold one a couple months ago for a 16-35 f/4 IS. Did that just in time. I sold it for like $950.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 236