July 28, 2014, 07:26:26 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 - East Wind Photography

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 44
31
Ok not exactly a bird and yet quite a bit more challenging.  This is a brown bat out in mid afternoon.  Shot using 400/1600.

32
Software & Accessories / BIF and Wildlife using Magic Lantern Dual ISO
« on: April 28, 2014, 07:03:22 PM »
I spent a day shooting wildlife using Magic Lanterns Dual ISO mode on my 5D3 and was pleasantly surprised with the results.

I was wondering if anyone else has used Dual iso for such and care to share their settings and experiences. 

I was using 400/1600 on a day with full sun which i think maybe was a little aggressive.  However i was able to use shutter speeds of around 1/1250 at f6.3 with my 600 f4L.

One thing that i did notice was that i did not have to compensate exposure for shots against bright backgrounds or sky.  Typically with BIF i need to overexpose 1 to 2 stops and blow out the sky to get good shadow exposure.  Dual iso allowed me to pull up the shadows with the benefit of low noise and no blown out highlights.

Wondering if anyone has experimented with this much and cared to share settings they have used in varying conditions.


33
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 26, 2014, 01:25:09 PM »
The surprise might be that there is no surprise, Canon keeps being Canon, juggling features and trickling down tech and they simply cannot find a position for a 7d2 in their lineup between 70d and 5d3 and in comparison to the crop competition.

Btw rumor has it they'll give the 7d1 another boost and lifetime extension with the firmware 3.0 in q4/2014 as they are eager to find out how long they people keep buying a camera with a by now 6 year old sensor. With this marketing data, they can push back the 5d4 release to early 2018.

Unfortunately they cannot improve the High-ISO performance of the sensor with another firmware and also not the resolution and dynamic range. Every thing else with the 7D is already fine.

AF is not on par with modern cameras.  Between poor IQ and slow inaccurate AF (relative to new sensors) It really makes it a poor choice for a new buyer.  Those two alone should imprive with the 7D2 making it a better choice.  How it stacks up with 5diii and 1div, 1dx we'll see.

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X Troubles (not funny)
« on: April 24, 2014, 11:43:35 AM »
You need to go back and check your specs.  The 5diii does not have a pop up flash.  Hmmm. Maybe i got ripped off.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 23, 2014, 10:10:45 PM »


There have been strides in sensor technology, however pixel size still dominates the determination of how much noise you have. Smaller pixels will always have more noise, that's a simple matter of physics. We have improved READ noise with better sensor technology, but read noise is only a small contribution to total noise (especially at high ISO)...photon shot noise is the primary source of noise in images. The larger pixels of the 1D IV will always win out against smaller pixels of APS-C sensors. The only way the 7D II could do better is if it had larger pixels than the 1D IV, however that would make it something like a 10mp sensor...highly unlikely.

A smaller pixel generates less read noise, correct. For example, the 7D has 8e- read noise, vs. the 1D X's 35e- read noise. But read noise is a tiny, tiny, tiny contributor to overall noise. The lower FWC means TOTAL noise (including photon shot noise) is higher, because your maximum signal (as dictated by that lower FWC) is lower.

The overall sensor area is what dictates total noise in the image, and in that respect it doesn't really matter what the pixel size is. Smaller sensors have more noise than larger sensors due to their smaller total area/less total light gathered.

Jrista, I'm a little confused by your two statements - which seem at odds with each other, unless I misunderstand them. 

My understanding is noise is determined by the total light gathered by the system, and that is a function of the sensor's area and its quantum efficiency.  That would mean changing the 7D sensor for one which is the same size but has a smaller number of much larger pixels (which otherwise performed the same) wouldn't help with noise, because you wouldn't change the total light gathered by the system.  Larger pixels would presumably have a larger FWC, which might enable more subtle colour/brightness gradation (and perhaps increase dynamic range?), but wouldn't actually reduce noise.

Am I missing something?

That is essentially correct. Pixel size doesn't matter much because you can always downsample, which is effectively the same as either binning or having larger pixels. Let's say you have a 32mp APS-C and a 8mp APS-C. Both sensors have a Q.E. of 50%. Neither sensor has an AA filter. These two sensors are a factor of four difference in pixel size...you can fit four of the 32mp sized pixels into one 8mp sized pixel. If you take the 32mp image and downsample it to 8mp (8000x4000 pixels downsampled to 4000x2000 pixels), the results are the same. The per-pixel noise of the 32mp image is higher, however once downsampled, basic averaging effectively nullifies the increase in noise, and largely nullifies the increase in detail, resulting in nearly the same detail and exactly the same noise as the 8mp sensor. The detail will be slightly higher as you started out with a finer level of detail, and the multi-sampling process of downsampling means that while you are concurrently averaging out noise, you are also compounding the quality of detail in each pixel.

Now, let's say the 8mp camera has 40% Q.E. and the 32mp camera has 80% Q.E. Now the 32mp camera only has noise that is 50% worse than the 8mp, rather than twice as bad. If you downsample the 32mp image to the same dimensions as the 8mp image, the downsampled 32mp image will have less noise and will show the same advantage in detail. It is highly unlikely we will ever see a consumer-grade sensor with 80% Q.E. I've only seen those levels in Grade 1 scientific sensors (the kinds of sensors you find in astrophotography cameras or the stuff they ship up to the Hubble.) We may see sensors with 65% Q.E. or so, however that is only about a half-stop improvement over the ~50% most current sensors have now.

Now, let's say we have two sensors of differing size. Let's say we have a 16mp mp FF sensor, and an 8mp 24x16mm sensor (exactly half the area of the FF sensor, slightly larger than APS-C). Both cameras have exactly the same pixel size. If you frame your subject in one vertical half of the FF sensor with the camera oriented vertically, and crop out the other half, you will have identical results to the 8mp APS-C sensor. If you frame the same subject horizontally using the full area of the FF sensor, you are putting twice as much sensor area on the subject. You have gathered double the amount of light with the FF sensor as you are with the APS-C sensor...and it has nothing to do with pixel size. If you downsample the FF image to the same dimensions as the APS-C image, your going to trounce it in both noise levels and detail levels.

The total amount of light gathered is really what matters. Assuming the same sensor size, then the actual pixel size does not really matter all that much. There are things that may result in improved performance of one sensor with one pixels size or another. Improved quantum efficiency is one way. There are also caveats with pixel size. If you want more pixels, that also means more wiring. In FSI sensors, the increased wiring with smaller pixels means there is even less total light sensitive area than with larger pixels. Theoretically, assuming an identical fabrication process is used, our 8mp camera from above will actually have more total photodiode (light sensitive) area than the 32mp sensor. If they both have the same Q.E. then the 8mp sensor will actually perform slightly better due to the slightly greater total photodiode area. This would be the only way I think a 7D II could perform as well as or better (highly unlikely) than the 1D IV. By reducing pixel count significantly, one can increase the total amount of light-sensitive sensor area. I'm not exactly sure where the cutoff point would be...however you would have to pretty drastically reduce the wiring area of the 7D II. You would probably also need to use a process shrink (500nm to 180nm). Another way to do it would be to move to a BSI design. (This all assumes that there is enough wiring in the 1D IV sensor that total light sensitive area is still not greater than the area of an APS-C sensor...if it is, then actually there wouldn't be any way the 7D II could actually perform better.)

In this respect, you are indeed correct about color fidelity and dynamic range...larger pixels do have an edge here. However you are still going to find that greater total sensor area still has a greater impact on those aspects of IQ than larger pixels do in the long run (for example, the D800 has phenomenal color fidelity, however it's pixel size is only marginally larger than the 7D, which has pretty terrible color fidelity in the grand scheme of things...the greater total light gathering capacity, benefited by both higher Q.E. and being FF, of the D800 is it's real edge here.)

Other technology may be employed to increase the total light sensitivity of a sensor pixel. Currently sensors are effectively two dimensional...the only thing that really matters for total charge capacity is the area of the photodiode. Foveon-type sensors stack photodiodes, resulting in an increase in total charge capacity for each pixel. The same technique could theoretically be employed for monochrome and bayer sensors. Blue pixels would be least sensitive, as silicon will filter out most of the bluer wavelengths before they penetrate deeply. Green and red pixels would be most sensitive, allowing for two or three, maybe even four layers of photodiodes. Such technology could be employed in higher megapixel sensors to increase FWC and sensitivity. There is nothing that says the same techniques couldn't be employed with larger pixel sensors, though.

thanks for the explanatation jrista!

My battery died before i could finish!  :)

36
...I had a Ford F-150 that had all the window regulators fail (4 of them) and Ford didn't pay a dime, I did. It was a known problem on all 2004-2007 F-150s. I got stuck replacing them all plus a third one on the driver’s window at a cost of $1K out of my pocket....

Umm, interesting.  I had a Ford Expedition ('01) that developed a head gasket leak because of a well documented issue with the passenger side head (all over the net).  The head was not milled flat and had a slight gash in it from the machining process and over time the head developed a leak.  I was loosing about 2 quarts before an oil change.  There was a service bulletin, but no recall. If you were outside warranty, tough.  I promised myself that I would never buy another Ford SUV.  I went Toyota and happy as a clam - so far. 

I hope Canon is not treating it's customers this way.  If so, I smell a potential class action lawsuit or worse the  defect of loyal customers.

Little chance serious canon customers will defect.  The other side of the fence is worse.  Your warranty info is always available up front before you make a purchase.  After that you are always on your own with any company and any product.  Little chance for a class action.  Now if its still under warranty and it fails then you have a case.  However all of the wining ive seen here is about after warranty service.

And the warranty covers product materials and workmanship for 1 year usually.  The key words here are materials and workmanship.  Any design flaw is considered workmanship and covered under the warranty period.

As far as the ford goes...they are designed to leak right off the dealers lot.  If you fix them all, the engine explodes.


37
EOS-M / Re: I fell in love with EOS-M again and again
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:45:06 PM »
Surapon, I just installed Magic Lantern on my M and so far so good.  I will give it a good test on Sunday.  ML team took one of our favorites and expanded it's capability.

Always a pleasure to see your images and read your pride in this small package camera.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:39:21 PM »
And why I think it will have a big price tag !!!

39
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 11:27:35 AM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.
Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting.  If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX.  So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature.  If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D.  I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action).  For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less.  I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.
Agreed!
I did not realize how bad the AF was on the 60D until I got into birding and tried a borrowed 5D3..... now I can't imagine getting another camera without a great AF system. My ideal camera would be the sampling density of APS-C and 5D3 (or better) AF system... this is why I am so keenly waiting for the 7D2 and why I did not even consider the 70D...

I picked up a 7d a year ago for a backup camera (again...after selling one to buy a 5diii). If i had to buy one now it would be a 5diii or 1dx if the wife let me.  However as a backup the 7d is ok and well its a backup.  My intent was/is to replace it with the 7dii.  I could easily just replace with another 5diii but i dont feel the need to rush out and make a purchase. I Wou,d rather wait and see if the 7dii has an improved af system...will certainly have better iq than the 7d.

On top of that i have magic lantern installed which stretches the 7d capability a bit and keeps me occupied while i wait for what seems like an eternity for 7dii orders to start.  However if the 7dii ends up being just another 70d with enhanced video then i may defer to another 5diii.


40
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 09:09:59 AM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.
Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting.  If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX.  So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature.  If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D.  I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action).  For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less.  I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.



41
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 09:31:26 PM »
Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

1div is old and on its last leg.  Dont see it lasting long enough for any reputable testing firm to do an official comparison against the 7dii once it comes out.  Lastly it does no good to compare something against another that doesnt exist yet.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:46:19 PM »
Pretty much an excellent description of what to expect.  Most of us agree that the 7DII will not equal the 1Dx.  The 1DX is really purpose built for sports and action photography.  The 7DII will be purpose built for video.  The writing is on the wall.  While I'm sure it will offer much more than the 7D and offer better IQ, much of the design is going to be built around a videographer's dream.

My fear is that a feature rich camera tailored to videography is going to be priced out of the range of most photographers who dont need the video features.  I predict this camera will come to market around 2800.00 which will mean more like 3200.00 because we know Canon will milk us for every penny in our accounts.

To make things worse just because they like to make us feel more pain, the initial order will likely be kits with lenses they have a boat load of stock on.  So we are talking an initial out-lie of about 3600 to 3800.

Jon, do you see a market for the 7DII except for those high-end shooters looking for reach?
If they want quality they have the 3 FF cameras.
If they are looking for value they have the 70D.

First, there is more to IQ than what the sensor does. I've said this a lot before on these forums, as had Neuro. Sometimes the focus capabilities and frame rate of a camera are VASTLY more important than how good the sensor is. In that respect, there aren't three FF options...there is really only one: The 1D X. The 5D III has a decent frame rate, but if the 7D II hits the streets at 10fps, the additional 4fps over the 5D III is going to be very significant. Were talking about a 67% increase relative to the 5D III. The 6D, while it has it's advocates, and it definitely pounds out the High ISO IQ, is definitely lagging in the AF area. That is not to say the 6D AF is bad...however it's no 61pt AF system either.

If the 7D II hits the street with 10fps, a comparable APS-C optimized AF system to the 61pt system (say 41pts?), and a 20-24mp sensor, then I absolutely think it will have a market, and I think it will sell like hotcakes. You definitely cannot compare that to the 6D. The only benefit the 6D has going for it is the larger sensor...but that is one out of many factors that affect IQ. The 5D III, in circumstances where frame rate is not critically important, will probably still give the 7D II very solid competition, but in the cases where frame rate is critically important, the only real full-frame counterpart to a 7D II with such specs would be the 1D X.

So yes...it will definitely have a market. I suspect they will fly off the shelves, despite the existence of the 6D. I suspect many a 5D III owner will buy one as a backup. I know for sure that a lot of aspiring amateur bird photographers will be picking one up, especially if a new 100-400 hits the streets along with the 7D II.

The reasons the 7D was a success have not changed. Nothing has really changed. The only thing that would kill the 7D II is if it hit with a MSRP over $2500...then I think that would kill off early adopters and slow sales until the price drops below $2500 at least (I think a price around $2000 is most likely.)

If Canon wants to replace the 1D (and IMO that's the only reason for 7DII to exist), Canon will try to replicate the IQ as close as possible. And that will mean lower MPs.
Note that Canon was pretty conservative with increasing megapixels on their 1D line.
They must have noticed people who want reach are wiling to sacrifice resolution for light sensitivity.
Mind you, the difference between APS-H and C isn't as much as with FF, so innovation in sensor light-sensitivity might well allow the newer APS-Cs (maybe not 7D though, if it still has the 70D sensor) to trounce the 1D line.

Why would you think the 7D II is a replacement for the 1D? The two lines are designed for completely different groups of buyers. The 7D II is not, has never been, and will never be a replacement to the 1D X. Your completely ignoring the price difference here. The price of the 7D II is likely to be less than 1/3rd that of the 1D X. It doesn't really matter how good the 1D X is, or how good it's potential successor is...price is the real segregator here. The 7D II will sell because it will fall within the realm of generally or eminently affordable to the majority of middle class buyers. At $6800, the 1D X does not fall into that class, not even close.

Regarding the megapixels of the 1D X, Canon didn't get away with anything, nor were they conservative with anything. It's so funny how short peoples memories are. :P I remember, very very clearly, the loudest and most vocal outcry from Canon customers before the releases of the 1D X, D800, 5D III, and D4. The loudest demand, by a very LARGE margin, was: "Fewer megapixels! Better high ISO!" That was what people wanted, was VERY MUCH what people wanted from the 1D IV/1Ds III successors. Canon didn't skimp, get away with, nor was conservative with the 1D X. They delivered EXACTLY what their customers literally demanded. For those who can afford it, it seems to be a raging success as well. It's converted more than a few pro Nikon shooters to the Canon camp, and has made raving fans of existing Canon 1D/1Ds users.

There is no chance the 7D II is ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER going to "trounce" anything with a larger sensor. Just not gonna happen. Again, outside of the one caveat I mentioned, the IQ you get from a sensor really has nothing to do with the pixels. Improvements in pixel technology are primarily going to reduce read noise, which is already a very small factor in the deep shadows, and secondarily improve sensitivity. The quantum efficiency, Q.E., of the 7D is already at 41%. To double the noise performance, Canon would have to achieve 82% Q.E. I know of sensors that can achieve 82% Q.E. at around 650-600nm, but all of them require significant cooling to do so...usually a Delta-T of -50°C or more. That kind of cooling requires a lot of power (for example, most high Q.E. Astro CCD cameras use two- or three-stage peltier cooling...a peltier, or TEC is a thermoelectric cooling device that uses a P-N transistor matrix to create an electronic heat pump...they draw significant amounts of energy.)

Now, assuming Canon did somehow manage to improve the Q.E. of their sensors to 82% at average operating temperatures (pretty much not possible, dark current is going to be very high at operating temperatures of 60°F and above) but just for the sake of discussion, let's assume they do. At 82%, they can double their noise performance (reduce noise by half). That still doesn't cut it. The 1D X has a total sensor area that is 2.6x greater than the 7D (and any potential 7D II), so you would at least need to increase the 7D II's Q.E. by 2.6x instead of just 2x. Well, that isn't actually possible. To double Q.E. again beyond 82%, you would need 164%...but you can't have better than 100% Q.E. (quantum efficiency is the ratio of conversion of photons to released electron charge in a photodiode...you cannot convert more than 100% of the incoming photons.) You can't even get that .6x better than 82%, because that would require another 50% Q.E....or 131%.

All that matters in this particular area is total sensor area. So long as Canon does not make the 7D line use at least a FF sensor, it will never be able to "trounce" the 1D X in terms of equivalent IQ. In terms of reach, all that matters is how big the subject is reproduced on the sensor...in which case smaller pixels mean more detail, but total light gathered for your subject is roughly the same regardless of sensor.

43
Honestly they might as well have made it pink.  Would have sold more cameras to kids and women (generally speaking).  The firearms industry did that with amazing success.  Could have even sold it with a percentage to support breast cancer research.  All kinds of things they could have done.

... but white???

You guys in europe can keep it.

44
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 17, 2014, 06:27:52 PM »
What's really sad is that I gave up waiting and bought at 1D X.  Not a decision I regret, but it was a lot more than I wanted to pay for an faster frame rate than the 5DIII.  The recent firmware upgrades have made it an amazing camera for wildlife photography and I'm curious to see if Canon adds some of those to the 7D II.  I also fear it will be a videographer's dream camera, which means zilch to me.

Zilch until your interest morphs and you take up wildlife videography.  ;)  I chose not to get a 1DX for a number of reasons but the number one was the shutter noise.  CPS loaned me one and in drive mode it pretty much scared away everything I was photographing unless I was in a noisy environment.  12 fps is useless if you scare away your subject on shot 1.

I chose the 5DIII and while the fps is lacking in some cases it does not give me away in my blind.  If I dont need the FPS, then silent mode keeps me undercover.  I hope the 7D2 offers a MUCH quieter drive mode shutter than the 1DX.  That might be the only show stopping thing for me.  Otherwise I am pretty much waiting for the pre-orders to start.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Replacement Mentioned Again [CR1]
« on: April 17, 2014, 03:10:30 PM »
For this extremly long time waiting, my expectations are very high now.
The 7D replacement should be a real improvement, even better than the D7100, that was released more than a year ago.
If it will just be a 7D with flipscreen, touchscreen, wifi and dualpixels and the overall image quality and high ISO performace will be about same as the old one or only marginally improved.  That would be my last disappointment with canon.

You can get that now with the 70D...of which I was disappointed in.  The best feature they added was AFMA adjustment and that was something to be excited about for those coming in from a 60D or T series.

The 7DII will likely have a LOT of video features that will drive the price up.  I'm sure one thing we can ALL agree on is that we will be disappointed with the price they set as is with all of their new products.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 44