November 23, 2014, 10:06:55 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 985
61
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:18:48 PM »
Hello All,

Few points unclear in the CR description:

1. lens is equipped with a new inner focusing AF system ???
The front doesn't rotate or extend when you focus and the focusing elements are closer to the rear of the lens than the front or middle.

The current 100-400 is inner focusing.  What's unclear from the CR post and your 'answer' is what makes it new.

62
Lenses / Re: Introducing the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II
« on: November 08, 2014, 05:16:35 PM »
Nice lens!  At this point, my $2200 is going to the TS-E 17mm, though.   :)

63
Lenses / Re: Critical View of 70-200 f/2.8 mkii+2xTC III
« on: November 08, 2014, 04:21:23 PM »
The 70-200 II definitely takes an IQ hit with the 2x, but I found the combo IQ on par with the 100-400 @ 400mm, AF performance similar.  Remember that with the TC you need to AFMA separately from the bare lens. 

What I don't like about the 70-200 II + 2xIII is the handling – too long and front-heavy. 

64
Lenses / Re: First Image of the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS II Lens
« on: November 08, 2014, 12:37:47 PM »
Your figuring would be correct a few years ago but now we have the Tamron 160-600 (which BTW is very good up to 500mm) and two Sigmas arriving before the Canon.

No, Canon will have to factor down their pricing expectations on this one for sales to get some early traction.

That would explain why Nikon dropped the price on their 80-400.  Except they didn't.


65
I won't be watching this video.  This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".

I missed that particular fiasco.  I clicked the link when the thread was new, saw it was Northrup, and closed the window.  My first and last Northrup infomercial was when he said the 5DIII might be ok for non-pros posting pics on Facebook.   :o

He actually said that? Grrrrr.

If anyone cares, Northrup defended himself against the alleged quote here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3709126?page=2

Actually, he didn't.  He was called out on it, and he chose to respond to the first reference to FB in his infomercial, not the second and far more idiotic one.  Another DPR member made that point, quoting from Northrup's concluding remarks in the vid...and Northrup did not respond.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54158478

I'm sure Northrup would be pleased to see people defending him for his asinine remark, though. 

66
Site Information / Re: Advertising choice brilliant
« on: November 08, 2014, 12:21:45 AM »
How is the choice to decide which ad to display made?

Dynamically based on your own internet search history.  Given your posting history, I have no doubt the ads are appropriate.  ::)

67
I won't be watching this video.  This guy discredited himself terribly with his video titled, "Crop Factor with ISO & Aperture: How Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon & Fuji Cheat You".

I missed that particular fiasco.  I clicked the link when the thread was new, saw it was Northrup, and closed the window.  My first and last Northrup infomercial was when he said the 5DIII might be ok for non-pros posting pics on Facebook.   :o

68
I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO.  The Oly's a bit less colorblind too.

You might want to look at actual RAW files, the DPReview studio comparison tool, or IR's comparometer. The EM10 doesn't win outside of DxOLand.

It doesn't win in DXOland either, other than for DR at the lowest few ISOs.

Yeah, but according to DxO that's a WIN!!

 ::)

69
Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters?  Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow.

But the result with dpp would look like a sooc jpeg with the same settings, wouldn't it (excluding raw benefits like wb adjustments, dr, ...)? And that would be about the same as the in-camera preview or preview in a cr2 file?

Do you normally shoot JPG in Neutral or Faithful picture style?   Default sharpness for those is zero.  It's 2 for portrait, 4 for landscape, and 3 for the others (scale is 0-7). 

70
It's not the distance that is important in determining sharpness in those TDP tests, it is the sharpness of the sensors.

If so, then the lack of sharpness of older sensors in their test shots is misleading. With a 60d which appears blurry as hell on tdp, I can get shots I couldn't imagine to be sharper with a 100L lens. Or am I missing something here?

Perhaps the fact that TDP's ISO 12233 crops have a very low amount of sharpening applied relative to what is the default for the 60D with major RAW converters?  Process the shots you refer to in DPP with Sharpness = 1, Picture Style = Neutral, and everything else OFF, and then compare them to how they look with your standard workflow.  Let us know how that turns out...

71
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs
« on: November 07, 2014, 06:11:11 PM »
...Canon has pretty much stagnated in the Full Frame DSLR space for pretty close to 3 years now.

As opposed to Nikon, who has released three new FF bodies in that period to fix problems with their predecessors – the D610 (D600 oil spots and banned for sale in the world's most populous country), the D810 (unify D800/E production lines to save internal costs due to loss of corporate revenue), and the D750 (because neither the D610 nor the D810 were bona fide competitors to the very successful 5DIII and 6D).

72
Whoops. Didn't mean to wade into the middle of the crop vs FF debate. What was I thinking? Seems like folks already have their clearly staked out positions on this one. Think I'll stay out of it.

Anyway, just ran off a couple hundred frames and I am really beginning to love the handling of this camera. The in-viewfinder level is awesome. Wish my 5D's had that. Its so easy to lose track of the horizon when you are photographing wildlife and then have to do a major crop to square things up. Given that it's already a "crop" sensor you don't want to needlessly be throwing away any precious pixels for that. 10 FPS is waaaaaay faster than 6. Hard to just get one frame off in high speed mode. It really wants to run!

In fact, you have a great handle on the crop vs. FF debate.  It's really about cost, and about features for a given price point. 

73
Don't be disappointed when you do actual comparisons and realise there is actually very little difference.

For all the "simple fact that smaller pixels resolve more detail" proponents I have never, and I have asked lots of times, ever seen anybody actually illustrate that point to any worthwhile degree. There are lots of comparisons out there, I have posted my own many times, of same generation cameras but when you process each to their optimum it becomes very hard to distinguish the two even at 100% magnification.

^^ THIS.

Theory is wonderful.  I like theory.  But empirical testing is far more relevant to real-world applications.  Ample empirical testing has shown that the 'reach advantage' of smaller pixels in smaller sensors is much less than theory would suggest.  In actual practice, the 'reach advantage' ranges from small to nonexistent to a disadvantage, depending on lens used, lighting, and subject distance. 

Interestingly, many of those empirical tests come from people who used only crop bodies and espoused the 'reach advantage'...then started using a FF body. 

74

Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...


He's largely JPG for his high ISO samples, so I presumed he did the same here.   I stand corrected. 

Well, I'm not sure where you got that idea, or to what high ISO samples you are referring.  The ISO noise comparisons using the Kodak gray/color patch test chart, which are the subject of this thread, are also shot in RAW.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-Noise.aspx

Shooting out-of-camera JPGs for any sort of meaningful comparison (other than comparing JPG engines, for who-knows-what reason) would make for a pretty poor test, and that's now twice you've made that incorrect statement about TDP's testing. 

75
Another test that is useful from TDP is the comparison of sharpness using the 200mm/2 L. The Mark II seems to my eyes to be an improvement over the 7D:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=673&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Although the 5D III still has a real edge, which is why the "extra reach" of the crop is not a factor of 1.6 because its image is more blurred.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=458&Camera=963&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=458&Sample=0&CameraComp=792&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


Hate to say it, but your assessment here is a little flawed. The 5D III does have the edge, however that is because it is a comparison of identical framing. Whenever framing is identical, more sensor area with similar pixel counts is always going to win. These tests are NOT tests of reach.


The 7D II appears softer (at f/2) than the 5D III only because the 5D III chart images were not taken at the same distance. If you DID change the framing with the 5D III, such that the chart was at the same exact distance from the sensor as it is with the 7D II...then the "softness" of the crop would at least be on par with the 5D III.


Furthermore, the softness is due to optical aberrations. For an adequate comparison of resolving power, you need to be more diffraction limited. If both cameras were tested at say f/4 at the same distance (which means different framing in the 5D III), the reach advantage of the 7D II should become much clearer.

In addition, Bryan Carnathan is fond of JPG straight off the camera in these comparisons, thus rendering them a less-than-perfect comparison.  As we all know, JPG processing, picture styles, etc. vary from camera to camera.  So I generally don't use his site's great comparison tool to rate camera bodies -- I use it for lenses, particularly sharpness vs. aperture.

Sorry, but I'm not sure where you got that idea...

Quote from: Bryan Carnathan, TDP
All test shots are taken in RAW format using Canon or Nikon's Neutral picture style (all parameters = 0). All aberration corrections are turned off both in-camera and during post processing. Using DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Pro), a sharpening setting of 1 is added to Canon shots.

Full details here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/ISO-12233.aspx

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 985