September 30, 2014, 07:58:18 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 - pedro

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 52
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Specs Leaked?
« on: September 15, 2012, 10:18:08 AM »
At reading some of the posts in this 21 page thread at the time I feel happy for not having waited on an entry FF body. About 3 weeks ago I bought the 5D3 and yes, I paid full price 3,6 k at a brick and mortar retail shop but I do not regret it one moment. It is a tremendously versatile camera (I am a passionate amateur, sometimes making a few bucks on selling a photograph, or getting remunerated with a "reader photographer fee" if the regional newspaper publishes a picture I took. I do all the ISOs. H1 and H2 are just fine for b/w available light as the "grain" even after post still looks like in the old days with pushed Tri-X pan's ;-) I like this "feature". And even though the 5D3 price is high (I've saved up for a long time) it is worth it. Getting kind of a mini 1Dx at almost half the price is great.
But a decent entry FF would make sense. The annoying thing in these specs is the SD only mode, and the AF unit. If  the sensor is based on the 5D3's and 1Dx the lower MP count might even help IQ-wise. Warning: I am not a tech. So, if this cam will have H1 (51k) and (102k) it will deliever. And we'd get back to affordable FF days after a long time. Hope it doesn't break the 2k mark.

Anyone out there having the same problems while doing night sky?
Yes, I happened to take a night shot with stars using a 5D3 yesterday, and I see this precise phenomenom for saturated stars when the default sharpening is used (just tested). When I turn sharpening off, the black halos disappear. I just tried it but am to lazy to produce screenshots for you... just try it yourself. Using unsharp mask as a "sharpening" filter is particularly good at producing black halos.

Well, yours is a very valid point. After reading the tips provided by fellow posters, I went back and put the RAW sharpness settings and unsharp masking to zero before converting the file to TIFF and: halos are gone. So there is a simple cure to all that. Then in post in CS2 I just did some unsharp masking and that was it. Very satisfied about the result halo wise. But I also will take care next time and won't do 45 shots within 15 minutes!
Here's the new sample. I took these RAWs in mRAW.

bkorcel, nubu,GuyF,wockawocka: Thank you for your inputs. I will take them into practice. It helps me a lot as I thought I had a defective device. But, as in most cases: It's always the dude behind the cam 8) What a privilege to live in this century, with helpful mates around the web! You're great folks.

I took a look at your link and can only suggest the points look a bit like hot pixels (assuming not all hot pixels would go red). I'm only speculating but maybe a combination of higher ISO and long exposure has caused them to get a bit hot.

Were you taking a number of long exposure shots in quick succession? This could produce hot pixels. Perhaps our resident guru Neuro might know.

You are right. I  took about 45 pictures within 15 minutes, mostly way up to ISOs as high as insane 51k and 102k. Absolutely unusable, though. Well, Neuro, may have another take on that too  8)

@wockawocka: thanks for your input as well! I will take less pictures. I followed examples seen on flickr concerning nightphotography. But yes, I will take it slower next time. As I aimed at "testing" the ISOs for the first time outside, there was a good thread in nightphotography on here, 1Dx vs 5d3 in ISO...Your input will be considered next time I am outside. The only thing is, that it started to look like this right after the first picture I seen in post. Therefore I cannot be a 100% sure if that is a heat issue only...or at least not while I was starting to take pictures...otherwise I just know too less about any camera tech to judge on this...Thanks anyway, your input as all the others is much appreciated! Cheers.

@GuyF, risc32 thanks for your concern.

The phenomenum appears in RAW.
Sharpening mode setting is the in camera setting 3.
yes, I applied long expsoure NR, after the picture was taken.

There was a firmware update (1.1.3) out by June but as far as I could read, it did not address the black halo phenomenum.

Here's a full exif sample at mRAW (or is it related to mRAW?)

The black halos aren't "visible" at print size, but they appear as strange clusters...

Hope Canon gets this fixed by the next firmware update.
Anyone out there having the same problems while doing night sky?

Still enthusiastic about my 5D3 but...Did some night sky photography last night and detected in all the frames black shadows around certain star clusters, no matter what ISO setting it was.

Guess I've seen this in early reports about the 5D3 in March or April. So as I bought it exactly for this kind of photography...What can I do? Did I get a lemon? Serial number: 04230012696. bought the cam on August 27 from a retail dealer...

Thanks for your help. Cheers, Pedro.

Here's the dpr thread about it

Fiddled a bit more with my 5D3
Here are two samples
51k, some NR
102k, NR: Brightness 11, Chroma: 20, darkened a bit

B/W at these ISOs works quite well.

All I was looking for. Plenty of camera.

If we get some 25kish 51k some 6 years down, that'd be awesome!  8)

Well, A Usable ISO 51,200 for Color Images.

On the 5D3 I can use 51,200 as my limit for high-speed B&W. ISO 25,600 is my limit for Color Images.

You are right. Color looks way to strange. But converted to BW it just looks decent. The tad of noise stands for a 21st century "filmdays" effect  8)

A Usable ISO 51,200.

As mentioned in my recent post, I kinda heard or read about the 1Dx being one stop better at high ISOs. How usable are ISO 51k on the 1Dx? My 5D3 looks promising...yes there is some NR needed, but not that much, well exposed to the right. Anyone?

To the OP, if we take a look at data on quantum efficiency, we see it increases about 7-8% for every additional stop of ISO. If we follow that trend, assuming Canon can keep increasing Q.E. by about 8% per stop of ISO, and if they can maintain the rate of Q.E. improvement of 16% per 4.5-year cycle...then every 4.5 years we should see two more ISO levels. That would put the next generation at a native ISO 102400 on a sensor with about 57% Q.E. for the 5D IV, and if current statistics hold true, a native ISO of 204800 with about 60% Q.E. for the 1D XI.

Now, the real question is how usable that ISO will be. I am not sure a sustained linear increase of 8% per stop is really going to make an ISO 204800 usable. It'll be better than a digital boost ISO, but dynamic range is going to severely suffer and noise will still be horrendous. I would suspect that we won't see usable ISO 204800 until we are in the 80% Q.E. range, which would greatly improve S/N ratios even in the shadows. I don't know if we can really achieve that level of efficiency in a consumer-grade device, date, its always required far more rigorous constraints on manufacturing quality, and usually requires some kind of active/thermoelectric cooling. Sony Exmor technology, combined with a backilluminated sensor and...really for honest usability...ungodly fast lenses...might make it a possibility. Either way...that would put usable ISO 204800 a good 8-10 years away at the earliest, or about two to two and a half product cycles.
@jrista: Thanks for your insightful comment. It seems like I was "intuitively" on track. As said earlier...If ISO 102k within the next 6 to 8 years gets improved in quality according to your post, it will be a big leap for every photographer. Fiddling with my 51 k and 102k these days I'd be even happy with some 25.6kish ISO 51200 about 6 years from now. It would be about a 2/3or one stop improvement, which I would highly appreciate. I guess it depends on one's type of photography. Coming fromTri-X pan film days, gearing towards Robert Frank and Robert Capa style, I feel pretty happy even at nowadays 51k on my 5D3. The 1Dx, as its said to be one stop better due to less MP, seems to be there already. That is plenty of improvent! Cheers and thanks, Pedro.

I suspect this situation will be down to what the R&D/ Marketing bods consider to be the most important feature for that time.

At one time, it was all about fps, AF and/ or megapixels. Now it seems to be about IQ, DR and ISO.

Without a doubt, the current 61pt AF seems to have satisfied most people - and most are happy with the 18-22mp range (note i said 'most' not 'all').

DR, IQ and ISO seem to be very much about the capabilities of the sensor combined with the light processing software used with the sensors.

The ability to improve the sensitivity of a sensor seems almost a given, working on how technology seems to improve. So, that would imply that the software needed to maximise the effectiveness of the newer sensor technology will be the guiding factor.

Will we see ISO listed at 408k or even 816k? I think we will - as H1 & H2 settings on the current 1D series model(s), because ultimately - for some strange reason - a whole load of people seem to want the ability to photograph a black cat in a coal cellar without a tripod or flash.

I like to push the ISO envelope as much as the next person (having spent most of my life doing shift work and using a camera at 3am frequently), but even in film days I found I could push a roll of 3200 to 12800 and hand hold at 1/60th second without too much effort. ISO 6400 on the 5D2 produced a much more acceptable image noise/ grain  wise and with the IS on some of the lenses, allowed me to shoot as slow as 1/20th hand held.

So I'm more than happy with what is currently available - but I wouldn't complain if I were offered more  ;)
soulmate.  8) I'm coming from film days as well. Had a Contax 139 Quartz back in 1982 and later on a short flirt with a Zenza Bronica 6x6. ISO 400 on it looked awesome, and yes I dared to push Tri-x pan to let's say ISO 1600 or 3200. I'm a black cat in a dark cellar type of photographer...The kick lies right there...So I am looking forward to much more improved ISOs in today's range by 2018 and the one or maybe even the other additional H1 and H2-stop... ::)

b) What will be the standard high ISO level after the 2 next bodycycles of the 1 and 5 series?
Is it likely, that my extended ISO 102.4k will be the ISO 12.800 or 25600 6-8 years from now, then we would talk about extended ISOs on a 5Dwhatever up to H1 204.8 (like 1Dx now) and H2 409.6k
A 1Dwhatever would even break the million mark by then going up as high as ISO 1.638.400!
Whoever will benefit from such a high ISO...  :o

We are approaching the point where the camera records more than the eye can see.

If you follow the link (I can't seem to get the actual imagine to imbed), you'll find a section from a shot I took with my new 5D3 out the living room window in the dark of night, handheld, at 102K.  Nothing terribly interesting (and rather noisy, although as someone who used 2475 Recording film for years, I don't find it objectionable) unless I tell you that the gap between the tree and bush seen on the left side of the photo was not visible to the naked eye.

I hope they put more effort put into improvement in noise and IQ than ISO for a while before continuing to ever more sensitive sensors (which I also look forward to...we're almost to night vision; I look forward to full daylight regardless of the available light level).

More realistically, DxOMark shows the 5DIII as about 2 stops better than the 30D. The 5DIII gets an extra 4/3 of a stop because of the larger full frame sensor, so technology has only moved by about 2/3 of a stop.

That doesn't seem right; if that's really what DxOMark shows, then it isn't as credible a tool as it is given credit for.
Good points here. Quality improvement at high ISOs is paramount. If improvement manages to produce 25600ish ISO 102k within 6-8 years, that'd be great.

@CharlieB: I used to shoot the Tri-X Pan back in 1982 with my contax 139 Quartz. And it was awesome. Always was in the low light-high ISO camp. That's why I went 5D3 now. And that is plenty of camera for me! Yes, we are spoiled, therefore looking back to the filmdays gets things in relation to real world situations...Good point
I didn't even hold a camera in 1982 let alone own one ... back in 1982 if someone were to ask me "what is an f stop?", I would've thought it is some new bus top :) ... I actually touched a camera for the first time in 1985 and fell in love. But coming to the point of spoiled, yes we are ... I've seen some of the SLR cameras of 70s & 80s they were small but I haven't heard anyone complain about their size ... now people hold a 650D & D3200 DSLRs and complain that they are "tiny", as if these people are the size of Hagrid of Hogwarts.

LOL...Just realized after posting this, that the shutter of my first DSLR finally ceased to work after 18-19 years (!). But by then by 2001, I didn't realize what the cause for it was... ::) So by 2002/03 I went digital buying a Sony DSC-P 30 (?), a 3.2 MP cam. I took about 50.000 pictures before it retired. By 2005 I bought a Sony DSC-F 828. Only to break it within a year while slipping off on ice. About a year later I went back to DSLRs via 30D and so, here we are again, going FF after 30 years...Awesome.

@CharlieB: I used to shoot the Tri-X Pan back in 1982 with my contax 139 Quartz. And it was awesome. Always was in the low light-high ISO camp. That's why I went 5D3 now. And that is plenty of camera for me! Yes, we are spoiled, therefore looking back to the filmdays gets things in relation to real world situations...Good point

"Despite all our "oh I wish I had that feature" comments, the current technology itself is already awesome ... imagine what an Ansel Adams would have done with the current cameras/lenses ... who knows 6 - 8 years from now there could be some very revolutionary advancements that could very well surprise us."[/quote][/b]
Yes. And as I stated: I am absolutely crazy, about the capacity of this cam. Due to rain over here, I cannot go out to do nightskyphotography. This is the next step at ISO 6400 and 12800.  8)

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 52