September 30, 2014, 08:07:02 PM

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 - Sporgon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 128
1
For me it would be focus. In the days of manual focus the ones I didn't quite get right, with AF lack of AFMA resulting in off focus at fast apertures.

For virtually everything else there has always been a work around.

2
I've updated the original post with a set of example images from this weekend. One of the few sets that actually were not blurred by camera shake on the A7r. I don't know if I'll get another chance to use the A7r in any kind of DR-limited situation...weather moved in, it's been raining a lot, so there simply isn't any high contrast. I could do more interior shots...but we all know how that would probably go down.

Looking at your new samples there is considerably more highlight ( direct sunlight) on the rocks on the right of the picture in the Sony file - I mean significantly more, anyone will see it. Either the light was changing as you changed cameras or once again the Canon file is under exposed relative to the Sony.

I'll be interested to see the raw files.

3
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: September 29, 2014, 05:59:31 PM »
The up load to CR seems to be killing the contrast. I think this is what has happened to Tex pictures. I've modified mine accordingly.

4

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.

But surely the argument here is will a massive push on the Exmor be equal in quality to a correctly bracketed image in this extreme case ? If not then it doesn't replace the Canon tech for many.

5
Sports / Re: Horses / Horseriding etc
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:52:15 PM »
Last Saturday I travelled down to Southwell to try and get a pano of the wonderful, ancient Minster church, but despite a fine morning and forecast the day was a washout so I called in at the British Reigning championships to see some Western riding.

All I had was my pano gear, and the only lens that was remotely suitable was the go-everywhere 24-105. Despite being indoors and dark I still managed to get some shots that I was pleased with. 5DII on AF servo, central expansion. Had to track as the riders were not stopping in the same place each time, so couldn't zone focus.

The sliding stops are quite spectacular when done well. Not quite sue how this would help cowboys round up cattle, but anyway it was fun to watch.

6
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 03:27:45 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.

This is an issue. It's an issue that people who don't think it's an issue are just going to accept. Some of us want more DR in Canon cameras. We have VERY good reasons for wanting CANON to do it, rather than someone else (and having used the A7r myself now for a few days, absolutely LOVING the IQ, I want Canon to do it even more now.) Having to worry about being insulted or starting the same old never-ending DEBATE every time I want to say something about DR is really shitty. I'm a Canon fan, just like everyone else here. I shouldn't have to worry that five specific members here are going to get excessively irate over the mere mention of a camera feature.

However, as long as no one puts any effort into trying to change their reaction to this particular topic, this particular issue...it really is never going to change. I made an active choice to reevaluate my stance, my reactions, to this topic about a month ago, when we had a nasty spat between a long-time member and a new member who just decided to go at each others throats. It's possible to change...even if you don't change your opinion, it's possible to change your reactions.

No one likes the DR debate, but it's not necessarily because they don't care about DR. It's because they don't like how the discussion turns into a hatefest. (I know this for a fact, as since posting my thread sharing RAWs from the 5D III and A7r, I've received a lot of thank you PMs, most of which mentioned that specifically...that they like to know the facts about DR, but don't like how the discussions on these forums go when DR is brought up.) The tone of the conversation here has to change. The insults need to stop. This IS an issue that some people care about. It doesn't matter if they are the majority or not, for some people it matters. For a lot of those people, they have specific reasons for staying with Canon, which only emphasizes their reasons why they want Canon to improve DR, and their frustrations in reaction to how Canon has not improved DR for so many years. Those people, including myself, have the right to discuss the topic without having our throats ripped out. You don't like that? Well...you can always ignore the discussion...or just ignore the members, then you'll never see their posts again.

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. Also don't post absurd statements such as "Canons are only any good for producing landscapes up to 10x8".

I'm pleased that you have taken the initiative and rented a Sony. Good for you, that's putting your money where your mouth is. But when talking about keeping things civil bear in mind that it is the highly inflammatory nature of your statements that have led to things getting rough.

(As I've typed this the site has flagged up two more posts. I see PBD has made a very similar post, but as I've typed this Ill still post as is.)

7
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS by Dustin Abbott
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:21:55 PM »
Interesting review and as usual the image quality from Dustin's 6D is impeccable.

8
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 29, 2014, 02:14:15 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.

9
I posted that particular picture for two reasons, first because of the composition being so similar to yours, the second because I knew you would do the "oh but the 1Ds MkIII is the only Canon camera that could do that" so it is from a 2002 1D.

HAHA!  I see you like messin' with us.  ;)
BUT - I could boot up my old 40D and it would also fare quite well with a deep shadow lift.
The challenge is to rework a shot like that on a Digic 4 or Digic 5 body.  Digic 3 and older didn't generally have as much of an FPN problem, even if they still had plenty of noise.

But I did just that a few pages ago with a 5DII - dig!c 4. I've now deleted those examples and won't be posting any more because it is clear that some people will not be moved even when the proof stares them in the face.

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.

10
I really screwed up my knee, and weather is blowing in rather fiercely now. I can hardly walk, so hiking up to my landscape spots (Long Lake is a great one, but it's a decent hike up past Brainard Lake, which is a nice area...and I can't take any hikes like that now. :().

I'll see what I can do about getting some more demonstration shots.  Given the tone of this thread, I don't think it will matter much...same old stuff, same old retorts, same old nastiness. I simply set out to demonstrate the differences, as best as possible...which required an extreme situation. It doesn't matter if you always do a 5-stop push, even with a one or two stop push, the differences can be realized.

I'm pretty dismayed at some of the insults being thrown, not even at myself, it's just not necessary (Sporgon!) We can be civil about this issue.

I'm interested to see the images too. If I could make a suggestion: don't get carried away with 5 or 6 stop pushes in scenes. It's just too extreme, most seem to agree on that. I'd like to see some sunlit landscapes shot into or across the sun, holding as much highlight as possible but not the sun disc. Then see if you can get the tonality and luminosity in the shadow areas from one exposure.   :)

11
I never get noise or banding in images taken with the 5DII, not in blue skies, dark shadow - nowhere. Either you had a real dud of a camera or a real dud of a brain. Maybe both, I'm being generous.

If you've never once seen noise or banding in 5D2 shadows then you never push it or use DPP which now apparently mushes shadows to nothing, maybe not much banding or noise, but raw mush, no details at all either.

I mean come on, you can say it doesn't matter for what and how you shoot, but to try to imply that nobody ever sees banding or noise in 5D2 low ISO shadows unless they have a defective copy, come on man.

Honestly I don't. My 5DII has always been as clean as a silent whistle in blue skies. However I think you are probably right in saying I don't push much. One stop push, one stop pull, that is always enough for me.

The 5DII has a fair amount of highlight latitude and headroom, much more than the 5D ever had, but it hates chronic under exposure, so I don't chronically under expose. Simples.

But anyway the 5DII is 2009 tech, so it's hardly relevant to judge it against a D8x0 anyway. The 6D has significantly more latitude than the 5DII and that's a more relevant comparison.


12
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II: More High ISO Samples
« on: September 28, 2014, 10:32:03 AM »
download this image at its largest original file (it's taken @ 6400 ISO),https://www.flickr.com/photos/fotoblogia/15255455365/in/set-72157647629974871when viewed at 33% in Photoshop it already starts to show high noise, at 50% is bad I KNOW is a crop camera and it as an improvement over the 7D, but after so many years?

That's ISO 6400 for heaven's sake. At 3200 it looks really impressive. Better than the 2009 FF 5DII infact.

13
@ Sporgon

it was already mentioned that DPP is better at develop cr2 raw expecially in the shadows, from this point your examples of the blue boat is very interesting even more with no noise reduction ...

it would be very useful if you would  post your version of the 5D3 jrista file developed with your workflow so we have a direct comparision (i think jrista used lightroom since is similar to my results). In some way the windows area could be the clouds and the furniture the dark beach ... so even it is not intended to be an artistic shot i think it is informative.

I think it is probable that your DPP conversion would be better and i'm curios to see how much ...

In the end if not better sensor Canon could realise a better/powerful software or why not help Adobe improve the CR2 raw converter ??? Their DPP is free, they do not need to protect sales in this regard, maybe it is the opposite, there are many adobe customers that could get more out of canon so no need to search elsewhere.

In this case this morning it was actually converted in an old version of DPP. No noise reduction, shot at 100 ISO ( which is actually 73 on the 5DII). I'll have a look at the mkIII file but I'm guess it is chronically under exposed. You can't push zero data and get an acceptable result, whether it is riddled with read noise or not.

14
A lot of these examples are worst case scenario pushing the tech as far as it can go.

That's exactly right. The only reason I defend the Canon sensor is to refut the outrageouse comments that have been made against it by a few people. There seem to be thousands of people read CR but aren't members, and I guess many are inexperienced in photography, and it annoys the hell out of me thinking of those people reading some of the asinine comments made here, by people who are more versed in sounding like they know what they are talking about than actually producing pictures.

15
Put the other way around: If people spent this kind of energy in making images instead of Grandstanding just think of how many wonderful things there would be to share with the world.  Gods!  People might actually perk up, set down their TV remotes, stop their Twittering, and pay attention to you!!  You might actually become famous, rich and recognized during your lifetime for outstanding work!!!

I see you're point, and I am in complete agreement with you, but personally sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that Canon Rumors is a "gear forum." Hence, most the talk revolves around gear.

There are plenty of other photography forums that I visit where 99% of the focus is on imaging technique and sharing beautiful photography. Gear is rarely discussed. When I get sick of the DR debates, I just visit those sites at marvel at the wonderful images talented photogs produce with all types of different gear.

Don't you think the irony of this is that many of the images shown on CR match or even surpass those on other sites ?

The DR debate can only centre around unrealistic, chronically underexposed images, and the onslaught of missionaries using CR as a platform for their zeal in unrelenting.

To the OP: let's see you capture a scene that includes the actual sun disc recorded in the EV range and lift shadows from a shaded area with the A7r. This is the only situation in which my Canon gear cannot cope.

Of course you will fail. I know because I have already tried with a D800. That's why myself and hundreds, nay thousands of 'landscape' orientated photographers are still using Canon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 128