August 27, 2014, 11:07:06 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 ... 233
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:17:03 PM »
And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

This is the thing right here. After the ZigZagZoe episode, I started seeing this fundamentally mocking behavior. Now I'm getting it in boatloads from Sporgon. THAT is what I don't get. I've bickered about technical details all the time, but I don't think I ever got to MOCKING people. I've argued from the other side of the fence before as well, I've defended the position of D800 advocates in the past on several occasions, however most of those also involved DXO, and I walked the line between defending the D800's DR advantage, and attacking DXO's bad science.

Seeing the mockery is part of why I'm changing my stance. We all know the benefits that technology like that in Exmor can offer. And yet, when I ask...would anyone here stand up and start vocally demanding fundamentally better sensor technology from Canon in the next DSLR...I get mocked? I honestly, truly, don't understand that. DXO isn't a factor in this discussion...it's just purely about the real-world differences in editing latitude between Canon sensors and Exmor. That's all it took, to go from a guy people seemed to generally respect, to a laughing stock?   :o

Personally, what I don't understand is why so many people spend so much time worrying that there might be someone else on this forum that doesn't agree completely with their gear choices or the rationale for those choices.

It's not that someone else doesn't agree. It's the unmitigated mocking fanboyism that REFUSES to acknowledge an alternative stance on the subject, and not only that, is apparently more than happy to KEEP THEMSELVES STUCK in the dark ages. Despicably even, some apparently don't want technology to improve so those they consider non-photographers CAN'T CREATE BETTER PHOTOS!! I'm sorry, but that disgusts me. It's a useless reason, born purely out of egotistical selfishness.

I've spouted theory and simple math for years on these forums. In most respects, the theories were correct...but I am honestly down right surprised at how poorly the 5D III, a camera of the same generation as the D800, performs at ISO 100 in the shadows. I remember the IQ from the 5D II...it was marginally worse...but generally, the same darn thing! I expected more...and I am happy to admit I was SORELY wrong about the 5D III's capabilities at low ISO. It more than lives up to my expectations at high ISO, and at any ISO where shadow lifting is not necessary, it's fine. But it doesn't do what I had hoped it would do for landscapes. So I've changed my stance. I have to look at the facts and accept I was wrong about something. So I DID!

And...I get mocked for it. That is the problem, ajperk. I could care less if someone agrees with me, really. I could really care less about being mocked...I don't care. But to see a whole community of people with their heads in the sand...and happy about it? So happy about it, in fact, that they will defend Canon to the last, to the end, regardless of whether that means they are stuck with increasingly inferior equipment as the years roll on?

Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I suppose we could go back and forth forever, but you seem to corroborate what I suggested: at several points in your post you essentially state that it bothers you that others don't feel the same as you do. You did elaborate as to why: e.g. you've shown time and again via examples the difference in sensor capabilities, you seem to think that their differing stance is holding back progress, and an admittedly curious theory about a desire to keep others from taking good pictures. But it still essentially seems to come down to this: you're bothered that others aren't as bothered as you are. I think you may be mistaking indifference for malice.

While the mockery is childish, I think what it comes down to is people can only figure out so many ways to say "Yep, I guess you're right about it, but it really doesn't matter that much to me Can we talk about something else?" After a while, they feel badgered (as they are often interested in topics beyond Exmor sensors and DR) and give in to impish temptations.

I'm sorry you feel stuck somewhere between Nikon's offerings and Canon's. I hope this is eventually remedied for you. In the mean time, many of the rest of us are happy, not because we are all some sect of photographic Luddites, but because we honestly have different concerns and interests when it comes to photography. And, truth be told, a few of us are pretty much happy with what we've got right now, and will see what new stuff comes out when that new stuff comes out.

Anyway, I'll let you have the last word if you'd like. You take nice pictures and I bet you'll continue to with Canon, Nikon, or whatever you choose. Happy shooting!

Often someone says they hope it has more DR or they measure some new sensor and same darn it doesn't have better DR, man I hope they get with or something. And it might end there. They say that and then others talk about other aspects or what not (if it is a thread that was not made to be about DR)

but then you get out of the wood work "learn to expose moron!", "troll!", "the difference is barely noticeable", some posts dubious info from a site chopping out the main point of the site they were quoting from, someone makes mocking comments, "get out of the lab geek!", "take a photo for once (and half the people who say this end up having galleries of a few pics of cats in the backyard and the ones they are getting on have thousands of shots of all types)", "DxO is a 100% fraud in every way", "a real artists doesn't need more than 6 stops of DR", etc. etc. and then people try to counter that.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:11:45 PM »
Well...to each is own, I guess. Me, I'm going to get vocal about Canon's crappy low ISO noise, and do everything I can to back up my claims with concrete, visual evidence...because, it's really freakin NASTY noise. STILL nasty...after all these years. And I think that needs to change (especially because Canon is still my preferred brand...I'd rather have a 5D IV with 50mp and 14 stops of DR than a D800.)

I see nothing wrong with jrista complaining about "Canon's crappy low ISO noise."

Anyone is welcome to complain about anything they want. But...

...doing it over and over and over and over again to the same audience becomes tedious.

...attempting to "prove" your point again and again to those who happen to disagree with your opinion becomes annoying.

...insisting that you are right and then attacking anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is obnoxious.

...failing to recognize that what you perceive to be a major concern isn't necessarily even a minor concern of others is rude.

...hijacking every discussion to push your agenda with long diatribes that repeat the same basic points time after time is obsessive.

...demeaning others when they raise concerns about features that you don't happen to care about (as in touch screens) is narrow minded.

...making wild claims that unless your particular obsession is addressed by a major multi-national corporation they will be doomed is delusional.

And, most important of all...thinking that these discussions on an internet forum are anything more than trivial ineffective entertainment is just silliness.

and yet there were plenty of threads that were clearly titled to suggest they'd discuss sensors and DR and was the anti-DR crowd who often be the ones who jump in and start calling anyone who report some measurement names

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 11:08:57 PM »
Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):

70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
(separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).


are you sure? 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area?? i though it was more like 1/8th?

Every visual and quantitative test I can find shows that the 6D is right at two stops better than the 70D at high ISO..  Since its size accounts for 1 1/3 stops, yes, I think that it's 2/3 of a stop better per unit of area.

DxO puts it at 4db or 1.3 stops better than the 70D at high ISO for 8MP normalized. The sensor size difference is just that. I might be missing something. But is what I'm seeing what sounds most reasonable just kinda guestimating what would make most sense. And it puts 6D at 4.8dB better than 7D so if the 7D2 used 6D tech wouldn't make the 7D2 1/3 stop better than the 7D? (of course it is possible that it might have 1.5-2 stops better DR at very high ISOs than the 7D, which is quite a lot more, if it had 6D per area performance)


4
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:02:50 PM »
Who thought the Canon EF 16-35 f/4.0 L would be such an incredible lens because hey! Canon can't make a decent WA.

I actually thought most people had high expectations for it actually.

People used to say Canon can't make a decent WA, but that was a few years back, before the 24-70 II, 24-70 f/4 IS, 24 2.8 IS, 28 2.8 IS, 17 T&S, 24 T&S II  :D.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:00:00 PM »
i'm pretty confident the 7D successor will deliver in AF and sport department, i just really hope it will also deliver some improvements in ISO department. Digic6 should bring something to the table, hoping for 2/3 - 1 stop ISO improvement over 70D.

Digic can't improve high ISO (unless you mean in cam jpgs and the NR algorithm)

1 stop will be tricky, people forget how good these cameras already at at high ISO for SNR and that the limits of physics are not all that far off, they are so good

of course more DR at high iso can help a lot too, since there is so little there now for most cams, it is entirely absolutely possible the 7D2 could end up with 2/3rds stop better DR at ISO3200 than the 7D, maybe even more.


6
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:56:07 PM »
Just noticed some things (this is about high ISO):

70D is about 1/6th of a stop better than the 7D.
6D is about 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area.
(separately), the 6D is about 2/3 of a stop better than the 7D per unit of sensor area (consistent).


are you sure? 1/2 stop better than the 70D per unit of sensor area?? i though it was more like 1/8th?

anyway 2/3rds of a stop improvement for 7D SNR would be pretty impressive and I guess that much is theoretically possible, but I wouldn't be 100% counting on that.

I think the 5D3 was just over half stop better than 5D2 and the 7D was some degree better than the 5D2 (again talking per sensor area, not overall!) so I doubt the 5D3 is more than 1/4 to 1/6th better than the 7D per sensor area. The6D and 5D3 SNR seem to be about the same.

Maybe you mean high ISO DR and not the highly photon dominated SNR? The 6D did take a big step there over the other stuff. The 7D2 could easily have 2/3rds stop better high ISO DR than the 7D, easily.




7
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:34:50 PM »
As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most.

Still, I don't see substantial differences between D800 and D800E paired images after proper sharpening is applied. 

Personally, I see moiré in bird feathers often enough despite the AA filter on my 1D X, not having an AA filter would be highly detrimental for me.

for once I can agree with you  ;)

I do think it a shame Nikon went AA-less only for the 810 and hope they add an 810a.
And I hope Canon does not follow the aa-less nikon/sony (imo) kool-aid (well maybe for say 5D7 or something, MP counts may be high enough then)

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:32:42 PM »
looks like a good update. I think a lot of the expectations from crazy rumors were way off (12 fps? please guys :) let's be realistic here). But overall a nice update if you're into cropped sensors.

Also worried about the "fine detail"...I really don't want them to start removing AA filters. That is just a dumb trend that photographers like simply because they do not understand the value of an AA filter, or the ease by which AA softening can be sharpened.

Any soft image can be sharpened. But the images that are sharpest in RAW without sharpening are going to take post processing much better.

I'm actually kind of shocked to see someone on a camera forum advocating soft images.

I'm not. He is advocating against messed up aliased images, not for soft images.

I hope Canon just get suckered into the Nikon/SONY fake hype over AA-less sensors.

i have to say the 810 images look not bad.
im not a nikon expert but i read the camera has no AA filter.

The audience of the 810 is nature, landscape and studio photographer. Patterns which cause AA can be controlled in the studio, and in nature with say landscape or plants, it really isn't an issue most times. so this is why AA-filter deletes will be the de-facto standard going forward just as high MP, real vision DR, and low ISO will be. Yes some of it is marketing, but the reality is that the AA filter has a noticeable penalty on EVERY image you take even when the image wasn't really affected by AA artifacts. Plenty of very high end medium format sensors have been produced without AA filters and ultimately we now understand AA filters do more harm than good at this point for many applications which demand the most detail possible. Off course to maximize the AA-filter delete you have to have proper technique, in particular with high resolution cameras. But at least now that the AA filter out of the way, you can start to really make technique the only thing in the way to the sharpest image possible.

This is off course not every camera, and not every situation. Yes, there will be times when an image has moire patterns due to the lack of AA filtering. Some software can correct color patterns very well, other images won't be so lucky. Ultimately you have to understand your work. If your 99% of your images are taking a hit because of the AA filter just for the 1% you may rescue from aliasing, then you're being a fool for worrying about aliasing. Conversely if your work doesn't demand the most detail and often shoot in aliasing inducing environments, yeah get something with an AA filter.

The D800/E experiment is fascinating in this regard. Nikon gave people a choice and even made the E more expensive. But ultimately it received such huge positive reaction from customers that they decided AA-less was the way forward. As it turns out, most people's fears are just fears not based on the reality of what they actually shoot, and moire wasn't as much of a problem due for most. Sometimes change is needed for people to overcome their fears and while I was on the AA-filter skeptic camp before, after trying out filters without it I can say AA filter is a pair of training wheels that need to come off. Ultimately the test is on whether you can go back to an AA-filter equipped camera after living without one? Answers will change but for my personal experience, and seems from market research Nikon's audience knows: no freaking way. I wouldn't shoot an AA-filtered camera again because it hurts more than helps for me. If I do, it will be because I legitimately had to, and so far, never have had to.

to each their own, i've definitely seen some of it show up in nature shots

(that said the degree to which it happens overall bothers me far less than say the lesser DR of the far more aliasing free 5D3 don't get me wrong, but I personally still hope canon sticks with AA and nikon goes back to offering it, at least for another couple rounds of MP increases)

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:30:32 PM »
...Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it?

...I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough.

Here's the thing...Canon's sensors are good enough.  Good enough to produce stunning images.  Good enough to produce award-winning images.  Good enough be part of the camera system chosen by a majority of photographers worldwide for the past 11 years. 

The fact that they aren't good enough for you and a small number of other people certainly doesn't indicate that Canon's sensor is a 'major issue'.  The only major issue is your mistaken perception of the severity of a couple stops of low ISO DR in terms of broad impact.

But why fight sooooo hard to make sure Canon stays behind in this regard forever? How is that a good thing? Sure for some it will never make any difference ever, but most have occasionally had some instant one of shot where the exposure came out wrong, with huge DR you can save it and probably most, at least once in a blue moon, have a shot that no matter what you do with what care won't come out as nicely, so even for them at least here and there it would help and there are some decent number who did hit the limitations fairly often and for whom it could make a decent bit of difference. Now sure you can take an infinite number of amazing shots with the Canon where the DR at low ISO makes zero difference, nobody says otherwise, but why fight soooo sooo hard to help insure that Canon never moves forward and all? Surely even you could make use of exmor quality low ISO at least once in a blue moon. Would you rather have that or, for some, bizarre, reason not?

And the way you mock and sometimes knowingly obfuscate, I mean why? To what good end for anyone?

And yeah for some it doesn't make any difference and sure you can simply just shoot the scnes and subjects where it doesn't matter and have fun taking an infinite number of stunning shots as is, but why fight so hard to not increase the chances that some will be able to shoot a much wider variety of subject types or that anyone won't be able to better rescue a shot where they did mess up.

It's clear that Canon won't bother unless they feel tremendous and heated pressure of every sort imaginable.
So let people go on about it and make a huge deal, the worst thing that could happen is canon finally decides to improve sensors and it makes no difference to you at all that they did, it's not like it would hurt you if they went to on sensor ADC.

It maybe not a crazy, insane freaking big deal, but it's pretty clear that Canon won't care unless everybody turns it into a crazy, insane freaking big deal, they won't bother otherwise.

If the 5D4 lacks in DR, I bet they will finally start feeling it even in sales a bit and maybe that and an internet whine fest of the likes never seen before could embarrass them into action. Or maybe not, but give a try and see.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:43:17 AM »
No. You attributed Neuro's quote to me and then apparently couldn't figure out to attribute my real quotes to me.

I just quickly quoted something that you said you agreed with and it's been a horrible two days and i'm tired and worse and didn't tkae the time to nest his quote and your agreement.


Quote
So, ...., I'm with Neuro on this one.

yeah exactly
was it so terrible I didn't make it explicitly clear that those were his words that you said something like you could not ahve said better yourself when I just fired off a quick response? it's not an official report and having you plagiarism his words didn't think it was the end of the world
have more importnat matters than camera nonsens on my mind now anyway, stuff that i really care about deeply for real



11
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:05:09 PM »
Perhaps you can answer the question the DRones you're echoing have been unable to address – if Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for 4-5 years, and their market share hasn't eroded, then why does having less low ISO DR matter and why is it that Canon 'must respond'?...

Perhaps you should answer how you can take pictures with Canon stock or sale numbers?

And many a company weather the lazy storm for a while, before sales finally started taking a hit.

That wasn't my quote. It was Neuro.

Amazing to me how people who claim to have such superior knowledge and interest in technical matters can not master this site's basic HTML.

Amazing how you forgot that you quoted Neuro there to say that he got it all right, I was responding to the fact that you said you agreed with that and that he said it all.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:03:51 PM »
It's amusing that a 2-3 stop difference means nothing and yet when Canon does better for SNR and it's like 1/3 stop better than it's all wow Canon rules!!!!!

A 2-3 stop difference in base ISO DR actually does mean less to me than a 1/3 stop difference in high ISO performance.  This is because I virtually never run into base ISO DR problems (even with the 18MP 1.6-crop sensor), but I'm always struggling against high ISO limits.

That is fine, but that is entirely different than saying flat out that 2-3 stops means less or is a more modest difference.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:02:13 PM »
Or, maybe canon did target the 7 series towards sports and wildlife shooters.  If the 7 series is targeted in such a manner, what would they have to take away from these proposed specs to give it 4k video?  Or, how ginormous would the price tag be if it did?  Would it need a third digic 6 in there to handle video output?  Would they have had to back off on the AF for it?  Or, if you look at the A7s, then would we see a 7d2 with a 12MP sensor?

Why would it take a third digic 6 to handle 4k video when the 1DC shows that TWO digic FIVE can already drive 4k video off of non-line skipped sensor reads?

Why would they have to back off of AF?


14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:59:41 PM »
You misunderstand, we are saying the opposite.  I was arguing with people who are against including Wifi in cameras for some reason.

Oh. Well in that case, I agree...that's strange. :P

Only reasons I can think of is they are total brand fanboys so if their brand doesn't do something, that something can't matter for anyone. Or they are paid to astroturf the forums. Or they are the sort who can't handle spending money on something that doesn't happen to be the best in every single regard. Or are overly fearful about costs and don't have a good sense of what costs what and tech.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 09:57:18 PM »
Are there really that many indie movie makers that are shooting in 4K nowadays or is this just all baloney?

4K is the future-proof format. That's why it's important even now, when 4K TVs are still not the norm.
+1

Ever shoot a picture and crop it? Same thing.... only with movies...

It also allows post processing image stabilization.

+1

plus DIGIC (or Canon marketing, not sure which) makes internal Canon video so soft that you'd almost need inernal 4k to get true high quality 1080p detail (witness how radically much more detail ML pulls out of a 5D3 compared to stock 5D3 video)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 233