August 22, 2014, 06:37:17 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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 46
241
Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 10:05:55 PM »
It's not an argument.  I am right and he is blind!  ;)  Just kidding.  It's good to banter things around.  Neuro and I differ on a lot of different topics here.  Neuro has a lot of experience as well as I.  People see things differently as we do in this case.  Regardless and for whatever reason I find the RAW images are better with HINR off even at lower ISO.  There are many reasons to use them and many more to just leave them off and do your clean up in post.

Re 60D vs 7D I did not find much difference in noise between the two but I did not own both at the same time and could not compare side by side.

Someone here must be new, arguing with Neuro Bahaha. Everything I have read agrees with Neuro.

as far as the original topic here, when you import a raw into lightroom it does not apply the standard "canon" noise reduction, but a much lower amount of NR. RAW images look like crap in lightroom untill some NR is applied.

Neuro, I have a Question:
I have noticed the Jpeg 7D images are much noisier than my 60D images, But I assume that is because of more modern NR being applied with the 60D, and the raw files should be identical in quality, being the same sensor, am I right?

242
True.  ACR for CS5 is no longer being supported.  You have to go to CS6 or use the forsaken Lightroom 5 (not sure if 4 supports it or not)

Is EOS-M RAW still not supported by Photoshop/ACR versions earlier than PS 6.0? 
I'm still on CS5.

243
Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 09:23:46 PM »
As I stated give it a try or ask Canon.  That might get to the bottom of it.  What you quoted is that 3rd party software will ignore the setting.  It doesn't state that the camera has not already monkeyed with your image.  That is a carefully worded quote including the part about "most" software.

Regarding HTP, yes it does bring up the noise by about one stop...and in some cases it's better to go the other way and overexpose with a higher ISO to push the noise down by a stop or two in post.

In the case of this aircraft I would have over exposed the aircraft by a 1 or 1.5 stop (depending on full sun or overcast) and blown out the sky then pulled the aircraft back down with DPP or ACR.  The sky in this image appears too dark.  Could very well be HTP was on and was trying to appease the highlights.  Would also be nice to see the metadata tagged to the image as reported by DPP.

As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images.  There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.


In that case, I'd like to respectfully ask 'the source' for some evidence.  I believe that the only in-camera setting that affects the RAW image data is long exposure NR, since the dark frame is subtracted before the RAW data are written. 

FYI, 'the real source' (aka Canon) disagrees with you, and states that while some Canon software will try to replicate the effects of in-camera HINR (but DPP, not so much), "Virtually all third-party RAW file software programs, such as Adobe’s Camera Raw™ software, will ignore in-camera settings such as High ISO Noise Reduction....Don’t expect the High ISO Noise Reduction you may have set in-camera to have any effect with most third-party software programs."

As for HTP, that also doesn't affect the RAW image data directly, although I suppose you can reasonably say it does, since you're getting a RAW exposure that's a stop underexposed relative to the ISO you picked.  Like HINR, it also sets a flag in the metadata, but HTP also 'lies' in the metadata, recording ISO that's one stop higher than was actually used to expose the shot.  For example, if you set ISO 400 with HTP, the camera really exposes at ISO 200, but records ISO 400 in the metadata and then applies a tone curve to the JPG file to boost the shadows by a stop - that underexposure is how it preserves highlights (and of course, you also get an extra stop of shadow noise as a consequence).  Most RAW converters recognize the flag, and try to duplicate Canon's HTP tone curve with their own version (DPP uses Canon's version, obviously, but unlike HINR, 3rd party converters don't just ignore the metadata flag).  RAW apps like rawnalyze just show you the 1-stop underexposed file.  Point is, IMO rather than setting HTP, you're better off just exposing to preserve the highlights yourself, then boosting shadows in post yourself, where you have more control over the process.

244
I find it interesting that this lens being made specifically for the M is still marketed with a FF focal length.  This lens cant be used on any other camera so why did they decide to spec 22mm f/2?  This is not really what you get with the camera in use.

Sounds like maybe grounds for a class action law suit.  I got 100 bucks back from John Deere because they underspec'd the engine on my lawn tractor!

So does the M with the 22mm f2 depth of field behave like a f2 lens? Or is it still like all crops and less shallow?

It's an APS-C sensor - so the 22mm f/2 is equivalent to a 35mm f/3.2 lens on FF.

245
Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 08:55:46 PM »
I dont have any examples.  I turned it off long ago but feel free to try it.  It's more apparent as the ISO goes up but still visible down to 200.  These two filters are used as the image is read from the chip not in post in camera JPG processing like the other filters.

So back to THIS image.  In addition to the JPG artifacts, I also see some color and some banding but hard to say if that was on the original image or due to LR screen shot and resizing for upload.  Really need to see the RAW or at LEAST an uncompressed JPG conversion.  I'm also thinking that this camera may have overheated as that can also introduce a lot of noise esp color blotching and banding.  Usually the camera flashes an error message though when it gets to that point but the effects may be gradual as the temp increases..not just a sudden introduction of noise.

Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.

HINR shouldn't affect the RAW file - you're saying it does?  Can you show examples?

246
Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 08:35:36 PM »
But the image provided is a JPG and has been processed.  It is obvious when you magnify the JPG file and see the blocking from JPG compression. 

As far as HTP and HINR is concerned, I am the source and now turn both off due to the effects it produces on RAW images.  There are a couple of options in the FW that affect raw images and those are two if them.

It looks like JPG compression noise..maybe either in camera or was adjusted again using software?

it´s an raw image she is talking about.. see the screenshot.

Quote
Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.

it does not affect RAW at all when we trust the manual.
and i never heard about this option affecting RAW... you have a source?

247
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: July 03, 2013, 04:17:46 PM »
I would have forgotten the car and just bought a 2nd 1DX.  ;)

the cost of the car was the same as the price of the 1DX . . .



248
Technical Support / Re: Help needes: EOS 7D - noisy pictures
« on: July 03, 2013, 04:16:27 PM »
It looks like JPG compression noise..maybe either in camera or was adjusted again using software?

I typically shoot in RAW mode only and turn off Highlight tone priority and high ISO noise reduction.  Sometimes the HINR can introduce noise even when not shooting high ISO....even in RAW mode.

Also, you can overexpose the sky quite a bit and pull the exposure back down with software like lightroom.  That also can reduce noise.  However I have not seen this kind of noise on any of my canon bodies including my old T2i.


249
Yawn~~~  Might be ok if you are looking to buy a powershot.

250
Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: July 02, 2013, 01:10:07 PM »
I get the same issues with a 7D just doesn't take as long for it to error out as it is actually fully auto.  Rarely can I get the routine to finish successfully.  Meanwhile it just keeps racking up shutter actuations.

Since it already failed on two of your computers, and you got errors like "failed to transfer..." could there be something wrong with the camera or cable? Latest Firmware? Can you try a different cable?
You probably checked all the settings against the manual several times, maybe it is a hardware problem ...

That's a good idea. Process of elimination: two different cameras, two different computers, two different versions of the software, and multiple lenses. Have you tried multiple cables yet?

Ugh... I wish I was there.

I've had a bad USB cable before. It generally worked but would sometimes cause problems. It was a lightweight low quality cable that ended up in the trash with a quickness once I figured out what was going on.
5 USB cables were used (3 for Canon & 2 for Nikon) ... also tried different USB ports on my computers just to make sure that it wasn't the USB cables/ports that were causing the problems ... during the coming weekend, I will try and borrow a Canon 7D to test it out with FoCal.

251
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
« on: June 26, 2013, 10:26:23 AM »
Yes so their model is to price it higher initially and if it doesnt sell, they start dropping the price.  I waited for 30 days and caught it the same day they knocked 900.00 off the price.

6K was an estimate.  Depending on the deal you get it could be more or less.  regardless you could still likely buy a 1DX for the price difference.

Well, I think you got very lucky. I spent time on Adorama very recently (just last week). I found a 500/4 L for $7700 that was rated D, and one for $6000 that was rated E-. I found a number of E and E- rated 300/2.8 L and 400/2.8 L that were selling for $4700 to $5900, and one 800/5.6 L that was D rated and selling for $11,999! If you find a D-rated 600/4 Mark I with all accessories in the hard case for $6000, then I think you get lucky. I certainly haven't seen one in the last 14 months I've been looking...

I disgree.  I got 600 mk1 from Adorama that was D rated for 6000.00.  Not a scratch or spec of dust.  Keys strap and manual were still in the original package.  The lens was flawless.  Plus it came with their standard 30 days return policy.  Not misguided at all if you buy from a reputable company.

I think the notion that you can get any 600/4 MkI for $6000 is misguided. You can find them for that cheap...but when you look at the condition of the versions that people are selling for that low of a price, they are NOT in the greatest of condition. Nicks, scratches, enamel discoloration, missing or broken accessories, etc. I was just in the market for these lenses, and I searched every store online, including eBay and Craigs List, before finally buying a brand new EF 600 f/4 L II from Vistek in Canada (the USD price was $10,865, plus $67 shipping and a 1.5% currency exchange fee...couldn't freaking pass that deal up!!)

In my searches, however, I found that an EF 600mm f/4 L Mark I lens, in good condition, with all accessories in good, working condition, including the hard case, was closer to $9000 than $6000, and in a couple instances where the whole kit was in perfect condition, not even a nick in the enamel, AS SOLD prices on eBay were ~$9800. Assuming the condition and completeness of the kit matters to you, the difference between an old Mark I and a new Mark II is not $6000. That would be the difference between a brand spankin new, list price Mark II and a fairly beat up Mark I. The difference between a sale price Mark II and a great condition Mark II is maybe $2000 to $2500.

In that respect, if you own a Mark I, and you've kept it in good condition, have all the accessories and the hard case...your "upgrade price" is likely to be far less than $6000, possibly as little as $2000. For that price, the reduction in weight, better AF, double the IS capability, superior IQ, and a warranty (!!)...well, it's well worth it!

252
Software & Accessories / Re: How good is Reikan FoCal?
« on: June 26, 2013, 10:23:17 AM »
Both.

Just out of curiosity - are you running it in RAW mode or JPEG?  I got a lot of errors when I tried to run the software in RAW mode (Win 7 laptop).  I have zero problems after switching it to JPEG mode.

P.S.  For 6D users, you need to disable Wi-Fi before attempting to connect to a computer.  The computer will not recognize the camera with Wi-Fi enabled. (It needs to be disabled in the menu, not just turned off in Q mode).

253
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
« on: June 25, 2013, 10:30:05 PM »
I disgree.  I got 600 mk1 from Adorama that was D rated for 6000.00.  Not a scratch or spec of dust.  Keys strap and manual were still in the original package.  The lens was flawless.  Plus it came with their standard 30 days return policy.  Not misguided at all if you buy from a reputable company.

I think the notion that you can get any 600/4 MkI for $6000 is misguided. You can find them for that cheap...but when you look at the condition of the versions that people are selling for that low of a price, they are NOT in the greatest of condition. Nicks, scratches, enamel discoloration, missing or broken accessories, etc. I was just in the market for these lenses, and I searched every store online, including eBay and Craigs List, before finally buying a brand new EF 600 f/4 L II from Vistek in Canada (the USD price was $10,865, plus $67 shipping and a 1.5% currency exchange fee...couldn't freaking pass that deal up!!)

In my searches, however, I found that an EF 600mm f/4 L Mark I lens, in good condition, with all accessories in good, working condition, including the hard case, was closer to $9000 than $6000, and in a couple instances where the whole kit was in perfect condition, not even a nick in the enamel, AS SOLD prices on eBay were ~$9800. Assuming the condition and completeness of the kit matters to you, the difference between an old Mark I and a new Mark II is not $6000. That would be the difference between a brand spankin new, list price Mark II and a fairly beat up Mark I. The difference between a sale price Mark II and a great condition Mark II is maybe $2000 to $2500.

In that respect, if you own a Mark I, and you've kept it in good condition, have all the accessories and the hard case...your "upgrade price" is likely to be far less than $6000, possibly as little as $2000. For that price, the reduction in weight, better AF, double the IS capability, superior IQ, and a warranty (!!)...well, it's well worth it!

254
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
« on: June 25, 2013, 09:34:52 PM »
Actually I find the large 600 tele to draw the girls in...so much in fact that I sometimes wish they would leave! (Did I really just say that?)

There is no doubt that owning one you have to be prepared in advance to answer a lot of questions and/or ignore the ones with obnoxious comments about how many months rent they could pay for the cost of one.

Contrary to most people I believe Superteles make excellent portrait lenses.

This one was made with a 500 II though.

Especially of girls who wouldn't come closer to you than 20 metres.


So you obviously know what I'm talking about eh?  ;D

255
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
« on: June 25, 2013, 09:29:39 PM »
So I know for sure that you didn't buy the 600 just for it's weight...and since you didn't already have a 600 maybe that is justification to break a wad on the MkII....as well as the fact that you cant buy a mkI new anymore.  Either way, havning a 600 mk1, I cannot justify paying 6K on upgrading it, even all new features considered.  It's not worth 6K more than the Mk1.

But it's your money to do what you want with.

"For those who already own the older 600mm lens the decision becomes slightly more clouded. The new lens does not bring any real world sharpness advantages over the older version. The decreased weight and minimum focus distance however may just be worth the cost of the upgrade."

Really???  Pay another 6K just for some weight and closer focus?

He really missed the boat on the reasons to upgrade such as improved image stabilization and all but highly desired increase in AF accuracy with newer bodies like the 5D3 and 1DX due to closed loop AF system....and even with that is it still worth spending 6K to upgrade from the 600 F4L IS?  I could buy a couple more 5D3's or a 1DX with that 6K.

I don't think he missed the boat, at all.  Sure, on test charts the 600 II is better. But the original was very sharp. The AF might be slightly more accurate with a new body - but the AF on the old superteles was already excellent. 

There's no way I'd have considered buying a 600/4 MkI, even if it cost less than a 300 MkI. The original is too heavy to hike with, too heavy to handhold.  I'd have bought the 500 I, even though it's really not long enough for me on FF.  The reduced weight of the 600 II (as the reviewer aptly stated, it's a 600/4 lens in a 500/4 package) was the main reason I bought the 600 II.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 46