October 01, 2014, 12:17:08 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 ... 255
1
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 30, 2014, 12:44:20 AM »
Would you recommend this lens for an aps-c body?  I already pre-ordered a Canon 7D mark II body only, any recommended general purpose lens?

Maybe. It will probably be truly perfect to the corners on APS-C. The only thing is that the range is a bit restricted and there are some other options on APS-C that have more range, even more speed and also do pretty well, at least as well center frame, maybe just a trace worse in the far corners but not sure that is worth giving 50-55mm vs 35mm and f/2.8 vs. f/4. But anyway if you are OK with only going to 35mm, it should do super well.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: No EOS-1D X Replacement in 2014 [CR2]
« on: September 29, 2014, 10:18:59 PM »
And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

To get 3 stops more low ISO DR and get rid of low ISO banding?
To get a nice 4k?
To get crisp 1080p without RAW?
To get more MP?

And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

Dual pixel, new RGB+IR metering.

These might be nice, but as someone who actually owns a 5DIII, I don't find any of these to be compelling reasons to upgrade. Judging by some of the comments and recent polls on this site, I'm not sure many other 5DIII owners are feeling a need to upgrade either. Waiting another year or two for more significant technological improvements might make more sense.

What more significant improvements? If 4k isn't anything, nor crisp 1080p, nor firmware with aids that actually let you focus video and see blown highlights, nor better metering, nor dual pixel AF, nor 3 stops DR at low ISO, nor 1+ stops DR at high ISO, nor 46-46MP, etc. what are you expecting?

First, I'm not sure your wish list is realistic.

Second, I'm not a video person, so neither 4K nor 1080 p has any interest for me personally. (Although I recognize that it might interest video people) but not convinced it is such a necessity that some people think, given that now and for the foreseeable future most video is going to live on the internet.

I can see blown highlights without the camera telling me.

I'm regularly amazed at how good the existing Canon metering is already. Even when I bracket to compensate, the camera's chosen exposure is almost always spot on.

I don't use live view, so dual pixel has never been a big interest.

You should know by now that low ISO dynamic range isn't a big deal to me. (I'll take it if given to me, but I'm not interested in paying for it.)

I'm always interested in high ISO improvements, but pretty pleased with the 5DIII's performance as it is.

And, for me, 46 mp is not a plus, it's a negative.

Now, I know that's just me. But, reading a lot of comments on this site from a lot of 5DIII owners, I think I may be more typical than you suspect.

So, what would interest me?

In-camera AFMA;
Lightfield technology, offering post-exposure focusing;

Throw in user friendly wi-fi and touchscreen, higher frame rate, an in-camera photo editing program (especially one that can be linked to an iPad) so you can edit images, convert them to jpeg and post to the internet all without having to first transfer the files to a computer, better weather sealing, and a few other improvements we haven't thought of yet.

Aside from the Lightfield technology, which may be a few more years away from making autofocus systems obsolete, the rest of this stuff should be either available now or available in the near future.

In the meantime, my main point is simply that I'm content with the current 5DIII and don't see much that would make me upgrade.

Oh, well if lightfield is the only thing you'd consider big then I think you'll be waiting well more than another year or two. Well, well, well, well, well, well, more. More like another decade or two for a FF DSLR with everything else also top quality.

I don't think anything in my list is unrealistic. Crisp 1080p you can already get from others. 4k is already out (even if external recording only for APSC/FF size for now). Exmor-like DR is obviously already out. More than 23MP is already out in FF. Focus aids for video and zebras are already out. Zoomed video modes are already out. Better metering is already out.

I mean if the 5D4 doesn't have crisp 1080p video or 4k or more MP or better DR and pixel quality or zoomed video modes or better metering what will it have? Lightfield is YEARS away at best. So what, in cam AMFA? After all these years we waited just for in camera AMFA? And are expected to shell out thousands for that? If the 5D4 has none of that stuff, it will be left in the dust, heck even by the 5D3 (since a 5D3 with ML at least has crisp 1080p option, video focusing aids, zebras).

What would it have finally the fixed AutoISO (a 1 penny feature to implement) and in camera AMFA? That sells the 5D4?? How low can you set the bar?

3
Funny thread. I have nothing to post though as I strongly try to avoid this look (although it is popular with many and I've even seen it do a lot for some people's sales.)

4
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 29, 2014, 10:08:35 PM »
Yeah, it's a very good lens.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: No EOS-1D X Replacement in 2014 [CR2]
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:51:07 PM »
And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

To get 3 stops more low ISO DR and get rid of low ISO banding?
To get a nice 4k?
To get crisp 1080p without RAW?
To get more MP?

And, for that matter, why would the 5DIII need to be replaced?

Dual pixel, new RGB+IR metering.

These might be nice, but as someone who actually owns a 5DIII, I don't find any of these to be compelling reasons to upgrade. Judging by some of the comments and recent polls on this site, I'm not sure many other 5DIII owners are feeling a need to upgrade either. Waiting another year or two for more significant technological improvements might make more sense.

What more significant improvements? If 4k isn't anything, nor crisp 1080p, nor firmware with aids that actually let you focus video and see blown highlights, nor better metering, nor dual pixel AF, nor 3 stops DR at low ISO, nor 1+ stops DR at high ISO, nor 46-46MP, etc. what are you expecting?



6

In my experience the Dig!c 4 cameras do have more FPN that both the earlier and later versions but it is buried so deep that it is just irrelevant 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people.

Yes, it is irrelevant to most people simply because not everyone underexposes their photos massively needing to push their photos by 5 stops to make them "usable".

I don't know anyone who goes around and purposely tries to underexpose by 5 stops so that they have to lift shadows and make a mess. It's about scenes that have a lot of DR so that when you expose properly some important parts of the scene end up in the lower parts of the signal.


7
Because it's tiresome to have seen years worth of such general veiled, or not so veiled, insults.

If I wanted to insult you, I'm come right out and do it. No need to disguise it. This is the internet after all :)
 

1. You are not the only poster here.
2. You kinda did seem to make a general dig at those on one side of the debate. It wasn't a simple request for an example.

Quote
So if someone asks for sample images to better illustrate how the DR limitations of Canon sensors adversely affects their images, you equate that with a personal attack?

Where did I say that and I note how you clipped out some of the examples I gave, which were of an entirely different nature.

Quote
Different people shoot different things in different environments under different circumstances. I think a sample image or two goes a long way in illustrating how important DR is to each individual photographer. 

And when people provide them, they get written off as contrived, or only a test, or this that and the other thing no matter what. Some tried a few weeks ago, but no matter what was posted, it wasn't a valid demonstration.
Plus, people tend to not shoot the stuff they know won't work and delete the stuff that didn't work out and not spend time getting it hosted. It takes a lot of time to post such examples and only a few seconds to type a few words and the examples never solve anything anyway so why waste time.




8
Considering that those are all world-renowned photographers and masters of their craft — it's just a little hard to believe that some anonymous person on the internet has higher image quality standards than they do.  Just a little.  So we'll just have to take your word for it.

It depends what they shoot and how the rest of the features balance out or much of a pain it is to switch and so on.

Just because some big name shoots with something doesn't mean it is perfect in every way.

People shoot all sorts of different things. One setup that a sports guy uses might get found to have tons of major faults by someone else and vice-versa.

And some of those people have complained about stuff Canon makes, outside of forums, on the sidelines.

And these are just tools. One the sidelines at games, sometimes photographers chat a little about this or that body and they talk the truth freely, and sometimes that means bashing say some aspect of AF on this or that model and nbody gets all defensive about it or agitated in a how dare you not declare so and so brand to be perfect.

9
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:42:20 PM »
That is because your opinion is different to mine, and this "issue" is just down to opinions not lab measurements. You don't earn a reasonable portion of your livelihood shooting images like that for multi million dollar corporations, I do, I know they would not accept them, to me they are both useless.

Now, I really am done...........

So that is useless, but the worse noise and banding and even less tonality in the shots of the airplane at sunset from Canon you were perfectly fine with. How does that add up? It seems to me all three should be declared useless then.



10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:39:27 PM »
It turns out it is incredibly difficult to find these actual "real world examples" where the difference in sensor performance makes any real difference to the end image. That is why the "issue" perpetuates. Start posting dozens of real world images where there is a genuine real difference to the actual output image and there will be no dispute, but the pro DR base can't do that.

shoot forests or inside of forests when the sun is out and there you go

11
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:37:40 PM »
Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.

I don't see any images in the first post in this thread.

Oops ... That would mean here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22999.0;topicseen

That is realistic though. And it's a lot easier for it to be demonstrated in your house than running out into the forest. The point of tests is often for them to be quick, simple, easy, repeatable and not boring, long, difficult wastes of time and/or random, when possible.

You can get the same brights and darks say in scene in a beautiful redwoods forest.

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:56:30 PM »
Not really. I'm not missing the point at all. I'm simply saying that the sample images usually posted on forums don't lead to a valid comparison. See OP's first post in this thread. The real world images prove that the difference is not as great as some would have me believe.

I don't see any images in the first post in this thread.

Quote
I don't say that more DR is not welcome, only that the 2 stop difference comes into play only for my landscapes shooting.

For your shooting maybe not, and that's great for you if that is the case, but for other people's shooting it may and the difference demonstrated absolutely is entirely realistic as to how it works out in the real world.
If you shoot scenes in the real world that have enough DR then it does matter and it's a perfectly realistic demonstration and it has nothing to do with no exposing properly.

13
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:53:27 PM »
Let's just be civil, okay?

You expect much.

These DR arguments end up with both sides pissing in the wind.

With that attitude, these discussions will never be civil. I tried to start a thread dedicated to DR discussion, didn't push any kind of agenda, and the thread was still derailed...primarily by the anti-DR crowd. So long as no one tries to react differently to the DR discussion (which is not going to go away...it's the only real issue Canon cameras have, so OF COURSE people are going to bring the subject up), then nothing will ever BE different.

How can it be derailed by people posting examples of the latitude the Canon sensor is capable of ? Actually something has come out of these discussions; there has been less talk of greater DR and more talk of being able to pushing 0 data. That in itself is a step towards understanding what Exmor really offers over the current Canon sensors. You want to push 0 data then I think we are all in agreement that Canon is not your camera of choice.

Exactly. Every time a head to head comparison shot is made, the images are so hopelessly underexposed that it is bound to show Canon in poor light. Real world imaging narrows the differences considerably.

You are missing the point. People are talking about real world images that are not under exposed. If you have highlights that are bright and need to be saved then the rest of the image may get pushed very dark, but that is not underexposure. That is proper exposure.

If you end up with e.g. 70% of histogram crammed into last 25% that'S underexposure whether you want to call it that or not. Technically, proper exposure is averaging all the tones to the 18% gray, but I'm sure you're fully aware of that.

That is 100% absolutely not true. The proper exposure depends upon the scene.
The ideal exposure exposes as much as you can without clipping anything that you need saved on the bright end (although there could be issues with exposing to the right too much if you use twisted color profiles and it might require and unusual tone curve might make processing tricky for some). In many cases that will lead to an 18% avg, but there are plenty of cases where that won't be the case at all.
(it also gets tricky since people may talk about JPG histogram 18% gray, which depends upon the tone curve, and different makers set the midpoint at different places along the linear RAW capture line)

14
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:49:43 PM »
Here we go again: "Canon has not improved DR for so many years". Statement of fact. Did you ever use a 5D, then a II and finally the III ? Oh of course, DxO graphs say there has been little improvement.

If you want to keep the discussion civil, which I agree we should, say I believe that...... or I have found that....... It is your opinion, not fact. The facts are disputed.

Those are facts and they are not disputed. They have been replicated by many others doing tests and shooting in the real world it's been seen as well.

Saying that you don't care, have no need for it, haven't noticed it in what you shoot, it only matters to you very rarely so it's not a big deal for you, etc. that is something else entirely and that may well be so.

Saying that you don't care is fact. Saying that nobody cares is not a fact. Saying that everyone cares is not a fact.






15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:45:36 PM »
I know, it isn't about both sides or not. I KNOW both sides go at it. But it's an issue, DR is an issue with Canon cameras. It's THE issue with Canon cameras for many people. It's a topic of discussion. DIS-CUS-SION. We CAN be civil about this issue. It's a choice we have to make. It's a difficult choice to make, though, when the anti-DR crowd regularly insults the pro-DR crowd. It's usually the anti-DR crowd who throws the first insult, or gets mocking and derogatory, or what have you...that's where the discussion always takes a really bad turn. That's where it gets personal, dirty, mean...that's where it becomes a war rather than a discussion.


It's not really that simple. A great number of posters see this course of insults the other way round. You see what you want to see.

are you sure though? Do you see people saying that if you never shoot high DR scenes at low ISO and have no need for it that they are morons or incompetent at photography? If you see someone discussing framing and composition and capturing peak action or whatnot do you see people jump into those threads and call them morons because they are talking about the artistic side of things and say they must be a bunch of simple-minded fools not smart enough to discuss the only thing that matters, tech, and berate them for not concentrating on engineering discussions in photo critique threads? (you can, of course, focus more on the art on forums and be brilliant or talk a lot about tech and yet have a crazy extensive photo portfolio)

Just in the last two days alone there has been a lot of: LOL at these lens cap shooting dweebs, only dweebs like that who have never taken a real photo in their life care about silly shadows and dynamic range; only morons with no clue about how to take a photography or do post-processing have any need for Exmor-type sensors; just lazy people who can't bother to set an exposure care; why are you talking about engineering and tech [in a tech thread] you lab geeks, go outside and take a picture for the first time in your life, etc.

And it's been like for years and some people slowly got sick of it over time and perhaps started fighting back more (the ones who didn't just get fed up and quit posting).

Yeah going on about sensors or this or that maybe can be annoying, but the talk is limited to the equipment forums.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 255