August 27, 2014, 05:29:02 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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 46
286
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 06:30:47 PM »
I was done with the insults  ;)  I limit myself to one per month whether someone deserves it or not!

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.
Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise".  All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high.  Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

But wait, he stated,

I  am quite done with this.

When an individual's metacognition is insufficiently developed to understand when s/he has moved on from a concept, others may question that individuals understanding of more complex issues.

287
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 06:29:01 PM »
No actually trying to say that a poor (cheap) amplifier can introduce more noise than a higher quality one such that when it's amplified, the photons can be pulled further from the noise.  All of the noise you see in an image is not due to what you are photographing, it's noise from the amplifiers within the chip including that introduced by heat.

The best amplifier in the world will not produce any noise and as such will be able to pull the photons perfectly from a noiseless background.

So it's likely the higher end cameras have higher quality amplifiers (equals less noise) and in the case of the 1DX has a chip that is capable of recording more photons per pixel.  Probably one of the reasons they stayed with the 18MP sensor so they could get better high ISO performance.

Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help.  Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape.  When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume.  As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape.  Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise).  Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck)  you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors.  When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise.  Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise.  Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level.  Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal.  Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ.  There are a lot of different points to consider.  What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog.  It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

Not even close to explaining your statement which was (and I'll add some emphasis)... "FAILURE of the amplifier to PULL photons from the background noise".  All you've done is tell us with your analogy that for low signal levels the SNR would be high.  Please enlighten us how even the best amplifier in the world, even a hypothetically perfect amplifier, will "PULL photons from the background noise".

288
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 12:26:24 PM »
Oh man, there are a lot of moving targets to make that comparison.  ;)  It's likely a combination of factors.  However the best solution to better IQ ultimately lies in better light sensitivity per pixel and less background noise.  Likely a better sensor design from the start requiring less photon amplification and processing after the image is acquired. 

Often a solution may be better suited for one particular situation but to bring it to market has to work in a variety of situations and someone makes a decision to live with less quality in order to support a wider range of operating conditions.  We see that in many different products including cars where we can get incredible gas mileage but you can't deviate from sea level.  Drive up a mountain and your car stalls out.  They have to be made to withstand anything the consumer can throw at it and keep working.  the nikon may very well have been designed with ISO 400 in mind to keep costs down whereas the 1DX may have been designed with higher ISO in mind.

Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help.  Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape.  When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume.  As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape.  Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise).  Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck)  you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors.  When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise.  Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise.  Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level.  Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal.  Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ.  There are a lot of different points to consider.  What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog.  It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

this makes sense eastwind...and i think somewhere in the supporting electronics/advanced circuits/design lies the specific answer to bdun's question.

one question though...if "better quality components/circuitry" supporting each photosite is so critical, then why does my old nikon d7000 (for $1000) have significantly better DR under iso 400 compared to a $6700 1dx when the "supporting parts" are surely of lesser quality.....does it all fall on design at that point?

289
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:42:19 AM »
I use a Canon angle finder for that purpose.  ;)  But sometimes the effort makes it more valuable.  Nice shot.

I got quite dirty laying on the ground taking this one, but I think a little dirt was worth it.

100 2.8 L
1/125
f/8
ISO 200


Wet - HMM! [Explored] by SauceyJack, on Flickr

290
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:18:01 AM »
Certainly, let me use an analogy which might help.  Lets say you are recording a violinist onto a tape recorder using a high quality tape.  When the violinist plays softly you have to amplify the signal to increase the volume.  As you do so you also increase the noise from the tape.  Maybe the violinist is playing so soft that their sound level falls to the point where it's difficult to tell if it's a violin or tape hiss (noise).  Depending on which tape you use (high quality or cheap quality) and what equipment you are using (radio shack tape deck or Yamaha digital tape deck)  you will have more or less noise when recording that violinist at the same recording level.

This also holds true for image sensors.  When the brightness is low such as in a shadow or low light situation the photon levels are so low that they are mixed with noise.  Depending on the sensor and supporting backend electronics there may be more or less noise.  Amplification, same as with that tape deck, amplifies not only the photons but also the noise level.  Higher quality components (better sensor, larger pixels, better amplifiers) can all contribute to less noise compared to the signal and more DR in the shadows.

You absolutely cannot compare sensor IQ without also considering the supporting electronics used in processing the signal.  Even if the cameras use the exact same sensor, different electronics on the back end will affect the IQ.  There are a lot of different points to consider.  What causes IQ differences in 5D3 and 1DX may be different in other models depending on the generation of support electronics also used.

Remember also that the image as it hits the sensor is still analog.  It's not converted to digital until after any amplification has already occurred.

Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

Please explain what you mean by this statement.

291
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:51:30 AM »
It was already emerging from it's exoskeleton.  Once they start they tend to stay put.  don't chase them up the tree, let them come out and then get them.  Maybe I blinded it with the flash too!  :)

Messing around last night.  5DIII, 100 2.8L Macro, MR14 ring flash, 2 extension tubes.
That is so cool! How did you make it stay? Every time I approach one it walks up the tree :(

292
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 09:48:29 AM »
You missed the point.  It's in the amplification process.  If the older body (or cheaper body) does not have a good enough amplifier to distinguish signal from noise then your resultant image will be mush.  Older sensor tech also is not a sensitive to photons as newer sensors.

But the OP was comparing 1DX and 5DIII raw and they are totally different sensors requiring completely different backend support.  No doubt that Canon uses higher end support components on the higher end cameras.  The reason is the same.  Failure of the amplifier to pull photons from the background noise.

No it's not false and it precisely answers your question.  High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

If that's the whole story, the 12 MP original 5D would have the most 'stretchable' RAW files. Does it?  The 20D would have the same latitude as the 5DII, since the pixel density is the same. Does it?

293
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: May 21, 2013, 08:37:31 AM »
Messing around last night.  5DIII, 100 2.8L Macro, MR14 ring flash, 2 extension tubes.

294
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 21, 2013, 08:28:48 AM »
No it's not false and it precisely answers your question.  High pixel density captures less photons per pixel.

Don't patronize people who have far more experience than you.  I have been a pro photographer for over 30 years.  10 of them I worked on image intensification systems 1st through 3rd generation.  The issue IS in fact the amplification of the signal when there are far few photons to discern the signal from the noise.  It's quite obvious that your little brain cannot grasp the concept of photons across a surface area.  I suppose you have as many brain cells as fit in a singe pixel.  To me you are just noise.

I  am quite done with this.

That doesn't answer the question and is patently false when you use my just as valid comparison, which is why I did it.

It seems nobody knows what component or process is used in 1 series cameras than enable more severe adjustments to a RAW file than a 5 series cameras RAW file.

295
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 20, 2013, 11:58:55 PM »
I wouldn't necessarily say the 1DX raw is "better".  It is in some ways and not so in others.  however to answer your question, consider the two sensors 23MP and 18MP both full frame.  The pixels in the 18MP sensor are able to capture more photons per pixel than on a 23MP sensor.  In order to produce the same exposure between the two, the 23MP sensor must be amplified internally to compensate for fewer photons.  This is why the shadows sometimes suffer on the 5D3.  There isnt enough photons down under to pull out shadow detail.  On the high end, the 5D3 loses as well because the amplification is to high for the bright pixels.

So in a nut shell, the 5D3 has to undergo some internal amplification of the photons detected to achieve the same exposure.  It's not good or bad, it's just what has to be done when you spread out the photons onto a higher pixel density sensor.

So back to one of my previous statements in that you can get the 5D3 to perform just like the 1DX and in some cases better.  Just have to realize that the lower 3 stops of the DR (both cameras) comprise of less than HALF of the available DR..and that means that the 2 stops on the high end make up more than half.  If you bias your exposure toward those two stops on the high end you can pull down your shadows and get similar results as the 1DX..at least as far as shadow detail is concerned.  Not many people are savy enough to know how to get 5 stops of DR in their photographs and that's why there is HDR process.

I personally like the 5D3 raw files better than the 1DX, not from a DR perspective but from a noise perspective.  It's just smaller, more random and easier to deal with than the 1DX.  Perhaps the 1DX is better at super high ISO but I still find the noise to be bothersome compared to the 5D3.  That's me and others will differ in their opinion.  I wont be buying a 1DX but I'm waiting to see what the next generation will be like.  Hopefully an improved photon amplification system and better signal to noise ratio.



I have heard, increasingly lately, that 1DX RAW files are better than 5D3.  I have noticed myself, in other posts, that they tend to be able to be pushed farther.  Why is this?  Thanks for any insight.

296
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 20, 2013, 11:16:03 PM »
I'm not talking about lenses.  I'm talking about camera features that have nothing to do with IQ.  For example a sports photographer would very much need 12 fps vs 6 where a wedding photographer could care less as long as he can get good DR of a wedding dress.  Sensor IQ is NOT the only factor to consider.  If you are an amateur then buy what you want, as you wont notice the difference in IQ between the two.

I've used both.  I own the 5D3 and tried the 1DX on Canon eval.  I still dont own the 1DX..while the 12fps is nice for capturing birds in flight, the 23MP sensor on the 5D3 offers me more as well as the quieter shutter.  More DR doesnt do any good if the shutter scares off your subject.

So the point is, DR between the 5D3 and 1DX is so similar most will not be able to tell the difference...Only in side by side comparison of the same shot can you really see what the difference is.

I've never owned a 1D III or a 5DII so I cant speak about those..but they are not part of this subject anyway.

Quote
one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance

Why on earth not? If outright IQ is a major consideration RAW performance is the benchmark. Any lens can be made to work on pretty much any camera, but we can't swap sensors.



297
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX and 5D3 RAW files
« on: May 20, 2013, 09:34:32 PM »
1DX raw files have more DR in the shadows and highlights.  Where the 5D3 shines is in the smaller size of the noise patterns at higher ISO.  They can be filtered out to a higher degree than on the 1DX.  However there are tricks you can do to make the noise less visible..such as overexposing and bringing the exposure back down in post.  You can also do the same with the 5D3 but you cannot pull the exposure too far or you will destroy the highlights.

Each one has it's benefits.  I shoot mostly wildlife and that involves a lot of cropping.  The 5D3 can be cropped way farther than the 1DX due to the higher pixel density...and still any high iso noise is easier to filter out due to the smaller noise patterns.

However, one must not choose which camera based solely on the RAW performance.  Both cameras were purpose built and you need to choose the best one based on the overall package.  DR and noise can be compensated for to some degree but other factors cannot.


298
I have a similar trip planned and will be down in the sand working to photograph endangered nesting birds.  I dont plan on changing lenses outside unless it's DEAD calm and that's usually never the case on a beach.

Canon does offer a cleaning service which is relatively inexpensive.  If you are concerned about sand contamination, you can always send your gear to Canon for a full cleaning when you get back.  Dont feel that your gear would be ruined if you plopped it in the sand accidentally.

If you are reasonably careful with making sure you have brushed the sand off of the joint between lens and camera, you should not have any problems.  Avoid cleaning the front lens element if you can or use a UV filter on the front (a sacrificial lamb).  You can unscrew it and wash it under the sink with soap and water if it gets salt haze built up on it.

Enjoy your trip and dont worry about your gear.  It's why we own Canon!

299
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: F/8 Autofocusing impressions
« on: May 17, 2013, 11:36:29 AM »
Tried it with my 600 F4 and didnt like the IQ.  So I put the 2XIII in with my 70-200L IS II where it will stay.  F8 AF was what I expected.  Slower than without and IQ did not meet my QA!  :)

300
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mark III focus points off center
« on: May 15, 2013, 10:29:32 PM »
Wow, I fortunately do not have any problems like that.  All AF points are dead on with my copy.  I use Reikan FoCal to test ALL of the AF points and it will give you a heat map of the AF points and the calculated AFMA for each point.  It takes a LOT of shots to map all of these on the 5D3 but if you suspect something is off, run the test and send a copy of it back with the camera to Canon.  I would imagine if you complain enough and it came back worse than it was, they should give you another one...or at least a refurbished unit rather than blow you off.  With enough pushing they should take care of this even if the warranty is about to expire since the issue was reported while it was STILL under warranty.

I would press them for a replacement and keep pressing until they do it.

To be honest I've never heard of this issue from anyone else.  Yes in some cases some of the AF points are off by 1 or 2 AFMA but in normal use you dont even notice that with most lenses as the AF variance is often more than that from one shot to the next.

I had exactly the same problem and it was real.  After three service visits they exchanged the mirror box. Atfer that repair the AF points' misplacement was corrected however since then I struggle with AF system. Since almost a year from purchase the camera is being serviced all the time without any good solution. My guaranty is almost over and the camera is like piece of crap. I can only suggest you to push the store to exchange it as probably any service will not fix that. I checked 3 canon services and every time if one thing was corrected the other one was not working properly. Right now center and left points are backfocusing and right points are focusing in opposite direction. One year of frustration without taking photos. Unfortunately IMHO if you think your AF points are misplaced-you are probably right. In my camera when I focused on the edge of any target it focused far away. And it was obvious that it happened only in one edge of focus point. It is normal that the real focus point has more area than its layout in viewfinder however not only in one direction. As I said-they fix this but camera probably lost all factory tolerances and now AF is just useless.

Pages: 1 ... 18 19 [20] 21 22 ... 46