August 01, 2014, 10:28:24 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 - neuroanatomist

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 899
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 12:47:34 PM »
Hey neuroanatomist, do you handhold your 600mm f/4 L II IS?

Reasonably often, yes.  I walk/hike with the lens carried on a BR strap, and shoot as I walk.  I usually have a monopod clipped to my belt, so if I'm going to be stationary for a while I'll use that to support the lens.  That sort of thing is primarily spring/summer/fall.  In winter, when I'm shooting raptors, I usually pick a spot and set up the tripod and gimbal head.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:47:22 AM »
Would I for performances? Yes, and I have, but 12800 as a requirement to get good shots? Are you kidding me?

A requirement, for all performance photography?  Who suggested that?  Don Haines posted a shot, and asked what you would do to avoid using ISO 12800 under those conditions.  So, as the expert, highly compensated photographer you claim to be, what would you have done in 1.33 EV of lighting at f/1.4, with your shutter speed already down to 1/25 s?   Your pithy answer?  "Learn how to do a job right... Don't use current tech to make up for not knowing what you're doing."  Nice.  Helpful, too.

I still haven't seen your work, your site

Is one mouse click really so challenging?  That's a pretty sad excuse.

I have a job to do, and I'lll get back to it.

Where have I read that before?

All the best.

Same to you.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:33:08 AM »
That's the 'I don't want to shoot what you shoot, so why should you?' non-argument. Shooting under cloudy conditions is one example - not the only one (in dense woodland is another I've given). Shooting in overcast conditions can actually be more visually appealing, depending on a lot of things - it's lower contrast (we don't all like high contrast all the time) and the colours are generally less tinted (the light being whiter than direct sunlight, especially at the ends of the day). That's obviously my opinion, but your statement is just as subjective. Basically, we don't all have the same tastes, so if some of us want cameras to do something better for what we want, who are you to call it invalid?

Does anyone shoot flying birds in cloudy conditions besides me?  A few other photographers, apparently, and some in more interesting locations than places to which I can drag my three kids.  But, they shoot for NatGeo, so what do they know?   ::)

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:17:39 AM »
Two years ago, I was salivating for a new 100-400L.  Now, I'm not sure I'll buy one even if it comes out. I recently sold my 100-400 due to lack of use.  The 70-300L delivers excellent IQ and is a very convenient size for travel.  When I need a longer focal length, I use the 600/4L IS II. 

But, I hope Canon releases a new 100-400L - when the current was my primary birding lens, I was very happy with it.

The more "1DX" they put into the 7D Mark II, the more I will like it!   8)

What if most of what the 1D X they put in the 7DII is retail cost?   :o  ;)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 11:04:19 AM »
If I were shooting that same venue today, I would be shooting at ISO 25600 and 1/100th of a second. Once again, my choice of ISO does not make me a bad photographer, but my ignoring the tools available to me would.

To break my voluntarily silence, I'll bite.

The skill of shooting musical performance (my daughter is a professional dancer) in low light, is to shoot on the beat.

Cars don't stop for you, dancers and musicians etc do.

A dancer, a violinist, etc, stops on a beat, on a stroke, and it's a moment. Not long, but long enough to catch.

That's when you shoot, and it doesn't take some astronomical ISO to do it. it helps, but that's not the point.

Lol, sorry but silence would have served you better.

Did you actually look at the shot of the violinist?  The performer's face was reasonably free of motion blur, meaning she wasn't actively moving, which would certainly have been evident at 1/25 s.  There's a little motion blur on the bow, which I think adds to the shot by showing the action of playing the instrument.  So...the shot was well-timed.  The light was just really, really dim (~1.33 EV, if you want to put a number on it).  Please explain again how better technique can overcome dim light?  You say you don't go above ISO, you'd have shot that violinist in that setting with a 1/3 s exposure?  How would that have worked out, do you think?

By the way, I know many people in a variety of fields who are very well compensated for what they do...and suck at it. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Make a Big Splash at Photokina? [CR2]
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:41:13 AM »
Will the EF-S lens have weather sealing?  I'm concerned about it getting water inside from the 'big splash'.  I believe we'll see a 7DII.  Nothing other than a bona fide Canon press release will make me believe in an updated 100-400L.   8)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:20:56 AM »
You can only do so much with a flash. I suggest you go outside on a rainy night and try illuminating a couple hundred meters of roadway...

And he shot from 1950 to 1985.... I think that predates digital photography.

And predates 12800 ISO, completely negating your whole point.

He seems to have done his job fine without studio lights and 12800 ISO cameras.

What was your point exactly?

I hear the smell of rotting herring can be distracting, making it difficult to focus one's mind on a concept. I believe his point was that, unlike the BBC/NatGeo documentaries where the film crew can spend weeks on location waiting for ideal conditions (or recreate the natural environment and shoot on a sound stage, as was revealed a while back), sometimes you have to do your best in suboptimal conditions.  I'm sure the result was often grainy and dark, but it was the best possible under those conditions.  The difference is that today's 'best possible under the conditions' is a lot better.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 09:05:55 AM »
Oh my, what on earth did people do to take photographs before these cameras were capable of 12800 ISO?

We have over a century of photography that is useless as nothing could go to such a high ISO.

Thank the lord for the last 2 years of technology or our world would go on un-photographed.

More tiny red herrings.  Thank the Lord for the internet and Google.  How did anyone do research and learn new information before the technological tools of today?  Well, they went to a library, used a card catalog with the Dewey decimal system, and hoped the library had the relevant book.  Sure, it worked.  But it could take several hours (or days, if the book had to be transferred from another library) to get the relevant information that we can find in a couple of minutes today.  As a result, the average person can learn more, and learn it faster, and kids today know a lot more (fact knowledge, which is different than experience) than adults did when photography was young. 

From an artitistic standpoint, photos from several years ago have merit.  Pick up an old magazine, and look at the technical quality of the ad you think images with that level of technical quality are acceptable today?

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 08:56:30 AM »
320 ISO, and this bike was moving very fast

ISO? 100 funnily enough

Decent example shots.  Your subjects are pretty large and let you approach relatively close.  I wonder if that makes a difference?   I like the dirt bike shot.  It must have been a really dark day for dirt biking, what with the clear blue sky and the sun on the bike and all.  Your shutter speed of 1/320 s was several stops slower than needed to freeze bird wing motion, too.  Guess what?  I don't shoot at ISO 12800 on sunny days. 

The racing shots are less impressive, at least from a framing standpoint. Or maybe you were going for a Luke Skywalker landspeeder look in the first one?  It wasn't dawn or twilight at the racetrack, was it?  Again a shutter speed on the slow side, since you were panning and showing wheel motion, which is usually desirable in racing shots.  I sometimes use shutter speeds as slow as 1/1250 s to leave some motion in the wingtips of large birds, or as slow as 1/2000 s for small birds.  Freezing wing motion means 1/2500 s to 1/30000 s (the latter being achievable with a feeder setup and several Speedlites at minimum power). 

Like I said, decent example shots...even if they don't illustrate anything truly relevant to the discussion.

The BBC doesn't shoot their nature docos in HD at 12800, I'm pretty sure of that, as I have the blu rays and on my 65" TV they look mostly noise free :-)

That red herring should have been thrown back, it's not big enough to make a meal.  Surely you understand that video is generally intended to show smooth motion, and shutter speeds used to freeze fast motion are entirely different? 

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 30, 2014, 06:06:03 AM »
I've given you respect here, aside from commenting that you seem to show a different attitude when discussing DXO and DR.

I complimented you repeatedly in my original post...

I've complimented DxO repeatedly for their Measurements, and I use their software for RAW conversions.  I certainly do have a different attitude toward their Scores, which I find biased and misleading for the reasons I've already stated. 

My attitude toward DR is that low ISO DR is not the be-all-end-all aspect of IQ for most people.  There are some individuals for whom it is, and they should choose cameras other than Canon.  I do take issue when those individuals use that one aspect of IQ to bash Canon as a whole.  That is as silly as it would be for me going to NikonRumors Forums and posting repeatedly that Nikon isn't a good system because they lack a handholdable 600/4.

I may or may not get dragged into a further debate with you on the other issues you chose to invent from my posts, but at this moment, with a shoot imminent, I'm not leaning towards it, I have to say.

Go shoot.  You're skilled at it, and it's more fun than debating.  I am curious, many of your clients notice a difference in your output between your sessions before vs. after you switched gear? 

Ok Neuro (if that is your real name), let’s begin again.

My name is Dean, as zigzagzoe isn't actually a name, which I'm sure is a huge surprise to you :-)

My shoot is over and my last post was a little short, both in content and manners, so take it with a pinch of salt.

I'm John, it's early morning in Boston and I've got a busy day ahead, so this will be short and to be taken with a pinch of salt.  I'm a research scientist (as stated in my TDP profile link in my signature).  I have extensive experience in optics, microscopy (including designing and building multiphoton microscopes) and in digital image analysis.

I don’t shoot in the dark, I don’t see the point, others can do that if they want, but 1600 is my practical limit. If you need 12800, then either get some lights, a faster lens, or better clients :-)

Why do you assume needing ISO 12800 means it's dark?  Your clients are slow, right?  Flying birds are fast, even on cloudy winter days or at dawn/dusk, artificial light isn't optimal (and not feasible in many cases), I'm not aware of any 600mm lenses faster than f/4 (and certainly not ones that can be carried on a long hike through a marsh), and birds are great clients in that they never criticize your work, although admittedly they don't pay very well (at least here, maybe there's a burgeoning market for bird droppings in Oz  ;) ).

ISO 12800 is also needed with my fast-moving kids in poorly lit gymnasiums.  Flash isn't permitted, I'm often using an f/2 lens, and they're great clients because even though they do criticize the work, they pay in smiles, hugs and joy which are worth far more than money.

EOS Bodies / Re: One other hoped-for feature on the 7D2
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:43:33 PM »
They assign EC to the set button. Afterwards you can change easily the EC by pushing SET and turning the mail dial.

Personally, I have the Set button assigned to magnify the image to 100% at the focus point, which is broadly useful.  I just use the Q button to access it.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 10:09:04 PM »
Well, I never intended it to be offensive...

In that case, let me say that you have a blind spot when it comes to sensor technology, and it's the kind of blind spot typical of a 16 year old high school student flunking out of physics. 

Hmmmm...not offensive at all, right?

...DXO scores seem to be on the money, not just with the D800, but with all the cameras I have personal experience.
The GH4 scores mimic what I expected form using it for a few weeks before the score popped up.

Are you suggesting that everyone's usage pattern mimics yours?  Speaking as someone who shoots a significant proportion of my images above ISO 1600, with a fair number above ISO 6400, I can tell you that DxO's Scores absolutely do not mimic the cameras with which I have personal experience. 

That doesn't particularly bother me, because I understand the general nature of the bias in their scores (even if I don't understand the specifics or the magnitude of that bias, because DxO does not disclose their formulae).  But it's unfortunate that many people accept their scores as generally applicable, when that's far from the truth.  It's even more unfortunate when people support them without knowing (or caring) that they are equally biased.

If there is any system justification going on, it is on this forum, where no matter what any other manufacturer does, Canon are still the best.

And few see that that's that's going on. It's not a forum, it's a fan club.

Well, it's Canon Rumors, after all...not Nikon or Sony or Photography Rumors.  But still, I don't see that particular attitude very often here.  What I do see are a handful of people who have decided (long ago or recently) that Canon is not the best system for them, and come here to convince others that means Canon is not the best system for anyone.  Where is Nikon's PC-E 17mm?  Why don't most Canon bodies (except the 1-series) allow spot metering linked to any AF point?  Where is Nikon's handholdable 600mm f/4?  Where is Canon's sensor with 13-stops of DR at base ISO?  Where is Nikon's 1-5x super-macro lens?  Where is Canon's sharp-to-the-corners f/2.8 ultrawide zoom? 

A system comprises many components.  Having one part of one component (the sensor in a camera, in this case) that is better than the equivalent part in a competitor's system does not make the system using that part 'the best'.  Individuals make decisions about what is best for them.  As I stated previously, it's an objective fact that more people have decided Canon makes the system that best meets their needs, which is why Canon has been the dSLR market leader for >10 years, and remains so today.

People who argue that Canon 'is behind' and 'needs to catch up, or else,' as you are arguing, don't seem to grasp that simple, objective fact.  Does that mean Canon can do nothing and remain on top?  Probably not.  But consider...Nikon chose to buy Sony sensors with better low ISO DR, an issue with which relatively few people have needs that aren't met by Canon's sensors.  Canon chose to develop a groundbreaking new AF system for video/live view (a system subsequently incorporated into their Cinema line)...a system you praised.  I think far more people will feel that an improved AF system adds to overall system performance more than improved low ISO DR.

Canon seems to be 'skating to where the puck will be,' whereas Nikon is playing catch up.  For example, did you notice that Nikon is now using fluorite elements in their supertele lenses?  When only Canon used it, Nikon said fluorite "easily cracks," but now fluorite's "superb anomalous dispersion properties...effectively correct chromatic aberration," and it allows "a more effective lens with less weight," (all of those are quotes from Nikon's lens glossary).  I guess Canon knew what they were doing when they first started using fluorite elements in SLR lenses...45 years ago (in fairness, Nikon has used fluorite elements for many years in their microscope objective lenses, since fluorite transmits UV better than glass, an advantage for fluorescence microscopy).

Time will tell, of course, but for the past 10 years Canon has made the right choices to drive sales, and while they're predicting slight a loss this year, Nikon is predicting a substantially bigger loss.

Canon General / Re: What do you Cheap Out On?
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:58:46 PM »
The closest I can come to 'cheaping out' is that I bought an EOS M + 22/2 at the start of the fire sale, and subsequently bought a white box EF-M 18-55. 

Lenses / Re: 300mm f/2.8 L IS II - what do you use it for?
« on: July 29, 2014, 07:39:04 PM »
Nothing...yet.  But that's because I don't have one.  I'll get one at some point, but I seem to deplete my gear fund with 'cheap' lenses (like the TS-E 17mm f/4L that will likely be my next purchase). 

What will I use it for?  My kids' sports activities (they're still young enough that the 70-200/2.8L IS II is long enough), outdoor portraits, and with the 2xIII as a travel birding lens (the 600 II isn't terribly convenient for air trips).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DXO uh-oh?
« on: July 29, 2014, 04:11:33 PM »
I'm a long time reader, first time poster, but I have to address Neuro here.

Welcome to the Forums.  I have to say, I find your characterization of me to be rather rude and offensive.  You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion...but it's unfortunate that your opinion is apparently based on comments by the likes of dilbert, rather than my own posts.

Can you find a post where I claim that Canon sensors deliver better low ISO dynamic range than Nikon/Sony sensors? No, because the opposite is true, as I've stated more times than I can count.  I've also lost count of the times I've stated that if I were primarily a landscape shooter, I'd be using a D800E and 14-24/2.8G.

The issue at hand is that for you, like most people, everything is colored by your personal viewpoint and experience.  For example, I say DxO's Scores are biased, but you say they back up your experience.  Given your statement, "I am not a high ISO shooter," perhaps you don't see the bias inherent in their Scores...because that bias favors your shooting needs.  How is that 'open minded'? 

...but please, can we have some debate that actually understands what DR is...

Ok, but you'll have to excuse yourself from that debate.  When you make statements like, "With over 14 stops at 100 ISO (14.8 at 32ISO on the D810 it would appear)," you demonstrate that your understanding of the relevant technical issues is quite poor.  The D810 has a 14-bit ADC, it is not capable of recording over 14-stops of DR in a RAW image.  DxO's 'Landscape Score' of 14.8-stops of DR results from a mathematical simulation of downsampling that 36 MP image to 8 MP.  If you go out and meter a scene that shows a 15-stop difference from darkest to brightest, and take one image with your D810, you'll lose 1.25-stops of some combination of shadows/highlights, depending on your exposure.  That's at low ISO...once you get above ISO 800, the D800/810 DR advantage evaporates.

I don't believe in the concept of "pure IQ" – I believe in taking pictures.  A better sensor coupled with a worse lens does not make for a better picture.  A sensor with 20-stops of DR coupled to a 600mm f/4 lens that I cannot handhold would not adequately meet my needs. 

Everyone's needs are different.  Aglet needs to shoot images (sometimes with the lens cap on) and push the files 4-5 stops in post.  It's rare that I need to push an image more than 1 stop, and I don't think I've ever needed to push an image more than 2-3 stops (in those rare cases when I completely screw up the exposure).

The problem I have is when people assume their needs represent the needs of the majority, and what they find to be a limitation is universally applicable. 

If the D800/810 meet your needs better than your Canon gear did, then switching was the right decision and good for you.  You didn't like the 5DIII?  That's fine.   

The D800/810 sensors have better low ISO DR than any Canon sensor.  But...people don't buy bare silicon sensors, they buy cameras.  I believe the 5DIII is a better 'all around' camera, and the sales figures are consistent with that belief.  More people chose to buy 5DIII's than D800/E's, just as more people have chosen Canon dSLRs over Nikon dSLRs for at least the past 10 years.  That's objective reality.  Does it mean Canon is 'better'?  No...only that Canon is chosen by more people to better meet their needs. 

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 899