July 28, 2014, 06:25:33 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 - rs

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 39
151
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:12:00 AM »
Look, if he can post here and say that the AA Filter has saved the 60,000 images that he's taken with his camera then it should be easy for him to show that, right?

So you're asking him to post a picture without moire? We all shoot with Canon gear, so we've all seen those. The only interest here is where it goes wrong without an AA filter, and the ultimate is a comparison with/without.

152
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 12, 2014, 11:09:29 AM »
So for all those that believe the AA filter is necessary, how often have your photographs been saved by it?
...
Here's a real life example. Some time ago I shot a wedding with my wife, and a photographer we know very kindly lent her his old Canon 1D (mk I) to use so I could use two bodies myself. Anyway, after getting back and looking at the images, I learned the hard way just how bad images can look. I don't know the exact hardware specs of that camera, but if it does have an AA filter, it's far too weak. Here is a 100% crop of the grooms suit to give you an idea of the issue that camera has. Try getting rid of that without getting rid of real life detail. I've also reduced it to black and white so you can clearly see the issue isn't purely colour moire. As you can no doubt imagine, the images out of the other cameras were free of this issue. Put all of those photos, and every photo even vaguely along those lines I've taken before and after as being saved by the AA filter.

So every image you took with the 1D Mk I had this moire problem??
Were you using a zoom or fixed focal length lens?
Every in focus shot of the grooms suit exhibited the problem to a varying degree. The lens was a 28-70/2.8L, also borrowed. Every single shot my wife took which was technically good with the groom in the frame was ruined.

Fortunately I took enough shots with the 40D and 5D2 to keep the couple happy, but there were some great shots my wife took which simply couldn't be included in the final selection.

Big learning from that day: don't use equipment for the first time on the day. And don't ever go near a camera without an AA filter. If in doubt, test. If its a new Nikon, stay clear.

153
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 12, 2014, 10:53:15 AM »
I'm not sure what would be an acceptable alternative to you, but I am honestly quite happy to demonstrate the value of an AA filter however possible. In the absence of the necessary equipment to generate usefully comparable results myself, here are as few from DPR:
...

You claim that the AA-Filter has helped you in over 60,000 images and I asked you to post evidence of how that has happened, yet you post an image from DPR.

Now somehow we're supposed to believe that you're an expert on moire and anti-aliasing.

You've made some good long posts here but in the absence of you being able to demonstrate the benefit of the AA Filter with your own photographs, I'm going to call all of your arguments in its favour as being without substance.
Not everyone has hands on access and their own samples from a camera specced by marketing departments. Never the less, jrista was able to post real life examples comparing cameras with and without AA filters. Just because they're not taken by him, does that make the examples null and void?

And what about the image in my post? Is that again null and void because my wife was the one who pressed the shutter button, not me?

I'd go so far as to say that if you wind the clock back to before 2004, the question should be 'Will Canon use an AA Filter in the 1D replacement?'. Go to 2004, and you'll find out the answer is yes. They worked out how to improve the product line. Why go back?

154
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 12, 2014, 04:19:01 AM »
So for all those that believe the AA filter is necessary, how often have your photographs been saved by it?
Some people here are talking about no low pass filter on non-bayer sources, such as x-trans and scanners. Foveon is very similar to a scanner in that it can sample the colour in its entirety at each site, so colour moire shouldn't be an issue. And due to x-trans's random colour filter array (if a 6x6 repeating pattern can be called random?), they've greatly reduced the issue there. However, as jrista has demonstrated, two patterns repeating over each other (a fabric and a sensor) but slightly off can excite false detail - that will remain without an optical low pass filter, and it cannot be corrected in post without major sacrifices. Just think of looking through two lots of wire mesh or railings - you can end up seeing patterns which don't exist in either railing. How can any mathematical calculation get rid of that without destroying detail?

Just imagine if there was a simple optical device with virtually no penalty to the image quality that could be placed in front of the sensor to 100% eliminate noise at all ISO's - who'd argue for not having it, but instead do it all in post? That's the situation we're in with moire.

Here's a real life example. Some time ago I shot a wedding with my wife, and a photographer we know very kindly lent her his old Canon 1D (mk I) to use so I could use two bodies myself. Anyway, after getting back and looking at the images, I learned the hard way just how bad images can look. I don't know the exact hardware specs of that camera, but if it does have an AA filter, it's far too weak. Here is a 100% crop of the grooms suit to give you an idea of the issue that camera has. Try getting rid of that without getting rid of real life detail. I've also reduced it to black and white so you can clearly see the issue isn't purely colour moire. As you can no doubt imagine, the images out of the other cameras were free of this issue. Put all of those photos, and every photo even vaguely along those lines I've taken before and after as being saved by the AA filter.

155
EOS Bodies / Re: Filter redundant due to in-camera processing
« on: January 10, 2014, 06:14:48 AM »
This would tend to suggest that the reason for it being there in the first place (combating moire due to hamming) is not nearly as prevalent or significant as once thought.


No. It suggests that Nikon are removing the moire using in-camera processing.

"the design decision [to remove the AA filter] was made possible by the improved image processsing provided by the new EXPEED 4 image processing circuit."

Read more: Nikon D3300 review: first look | PC Pro blog http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2014/01/07/nikon-d3300-review-first-look/#ixzz2pzUHHSq7

Quote
Question now has to be, when will Canon stop including it in their designs?


As soon as they can get a chip that removes it effectively without (m)any downsides - removing the filter gives them a free boost in IQ tests.


I don't buy that. Many things can be corrected in post, and moire isn't one of them. pcpro.co.uk aren't renowned for their photographic expertise. In this case I get the impression they just read a couple of marketing gimmicks and wrote it as fact.

156
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon ditch the AA Filter?
« on: January 10, 2014, 01:22:07 AM »
Quote
If you're a fashion or wedding photographer then if you're careless...
What, if maybe the bride might be wearing some lace or a veil, or the groom a pinstripe suit? Because that only happens if you're careless?
Exactly!

The photographer should have know that it was going to happen and should have deliberately shot the photos out-of-focus...... :)

LOL! It's very easy to review an image on the back of your camera and adjust the shot if necessary to mitigate moire.
You're sounding like someone that's never shot a wedding :)

The pace is so fast with non-repeatable moments in time that you don't have the opportunity to chimp every shot, and then if needs be, shoot it again after deliberately defocusing the shot to the point that non of the three dimensional object with the pattern is in focus - in other words, not just the eyes slightly out, but all of the happy couples clothes.

For me, personally, I'd rather have a camera which lightly blurs things enough to avoid this issue, leaving me with results which can use the tiniest amount of sharpening to produce images with detail beyond the clients expectations. And focus can be put exactly where the photographer intended.

Yes, you can get slightly more detail without an AA filter, but for many forms of photography the minor advantage is nothing compared to the major disadvantage. Also, some here have argued that if the number of MP are increased to the point where the sensor out resolves most lenses, you can get away without it. My question is, in that case, why do you need no AA filter? If the output is already optically blurred at a pixel level by the lens, no lack of AA filter will sharpen it back up. And then what happens if you buy a new yet-to-be-released super sharp lens in the future and it does out resolve the sensor at certain apertures? Moire, and you being forced to defocus some shots. So why not just keep the AA filter?

Landscape, fair enough - as long as your landscape shots always only contain non repeating patterns. And you never shoot anything with repeating patterns.

157

If the only component of a camera that you place any value on whatsoever is the sensor, then why are you worshiping Nikon? They didn't even make the sensor!

I never said that's the only aspect I value. But, since this is a device that takes images, I think the quality of the image sensor should be placed at the top of the list.

It is a certainly one of the many components that go into making the image. For scenes that don't move and photographers that are happy doing everything manual, it's pretty much all down to the senor and lens. But most people don't buy a camera like the D4 or the 1D X for landscape shots. There are cheaper cameras out there with lessor frame rates, AF and greater MP.

The D4 and the 1D X sacrifice sensor resolution solely to be able to capture the money shots - in other words, the decisive moments in non repeatable situations. Who's going to ask Usain Bolt to re-run the race because the AF was slightly off or the frame rate wasn't quite high enough to capture the moment. I'm not saying the D4 isn't a fantastic tool, or the 1D X is perfection. But I am saying its a better tool for the job than the D4.

A good camera helps the photographer get the money shot. Timing and focus are much more important than DR.

Quote
Just look at any major sporting event - how many more white lenses do you see there than black lenses?

This seems like a very lemming-like way to make decisions.

So you'd say that those working professionals are ill-informed, and your escape from Nikon fanboy land into here is proof that the majority of them are wrong?

158
And if it does or bests Canon, what then?
Does? All of the Nikon FF cameras best Canon *now*.

You're welcome to your own opinion, but that opinion obviously differs from that of the majority of people actually buying Canon and Nikon FF cameras.


If one values dynamic range and cutting edge sensor technology, it's pretty clear who the leader is now.

If the only component of a camera that you place any value on whatsoever is the sensor, then why are you worshiping Nikon? They didn't even make the sensor!

If you can't recover highlights, who cares if you have two extra FPS and built in GPS with Insta-Facebook upload?

And who uses a 1D X for facebook uploads using it's non-existent WiFi and GPS?

Just look at any major sporting event - how many more white lenses do you see there than black lenses?

159
Looks like a sweet camera.
The previous Nikon S versions have been very minor increments. Expect nothing more than a bigger buffer and faster processing to go with it. As far as I know there's never been a new sensor or an increase in frame rate introduced with an S version.

By all accounts this won't bring Nikons flagship up to 1D X levels of performance.

160
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 05, 2014, 05:56:44 AM »
I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.

I agree with Roger than some sealing is arguably better than no sealing, but hopefully all those people swearing that weather sealing saved their gear back in that difficult situation will now reconsider. The thing is, without specific benchmarks is impossible to attribute the merit of any gear survival event to weather sealing. Roger's statistics also seem to imply that the weather damage events are not less frequent on weather sealed lenses.

The effectiveness of stabilisation systems and battery life are both independently tested.

The ingress protection rating system already exists, and some camera manufacturers use it for their waterproof cameras:

Canon D20, IP68: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_D20/index.aspx
Olympus TG2, IPX8:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras/digital_cameras/tough/tg_2/tg_2_specifications.html
Nikon AW1, IP68:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/aw1/spec.htm

Why not use the same system for lenses and bodies? I know they're each only half the system, but it would easy enough to test each independently, and the consumer will then be aware of the limits of their system (the lower score of the lens and body). I wouldn't expect even the best DSLR/lens to get IPX5 rating, but a weather sealed product could be as low as IPX1 or as high as IPX4. Quantifying this would really help the consumer.

161
Canon General / Re: Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?
« on: January 05, 2014, 05:40:15 AM »
May be another less than helpful post but reading all these posts about carbon fibers, I had to make it. Carbon  fibres as most people understand actually refer to a layered material consisting of several plies of light and strong continuous carbon fibres, all aligned or as a fabric, and  held together by a matrix, often a polymer. These are very strong in the direction of fibres, but may be very weak in other directions, such as in the thickness direction. Even weaker than unrreinforced polymers. Therefore, they would be very poor candidate materials for screwing things to like in lens mounts.

Micro-beads, flakes or short fibres filled polymers are much more likely, but carbon is less attractive there.
+1

When used in certain applications (usually with a different structural design than a metal construction equivalent due to differences in the properties of the two materials), composites can be much better. For instance carbon fibre is used very successfully to make certain components of tripods, race cars, airplanes, boats and even lens hoods for Canon super telephotos. I remember hearing about such materials being used inside the latest generation of Canon super telephoto lenses, but I can't dig up any info on that.

It's less successfully used as a veneer in road cars... You should feel the weight of some bits of carbon fibre veneered trim in "sports" versions of luxury cars :o

It's typical for a metal thread to be glued into carbon fibre where anything needs to be bolted into place. Therefore, lugs to attach a lens mount are far from a suitable use for this material.

162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to spend $3000 now or keep saving?
« on: January 03, 2014, 05:46:50 PM »
Also a 135 L would work nicely on a 6d with maybe a single yongnuo 622c which will emit a red grid of lines and help lock onto focus.  There are a ton of options... Heck manually focusing will work if you do it often enough.
+1

If 135mm is a regularly required focal length and a wide spread of AF points isn't needed, the 6D/135L system would be hard to beat in low light.

163
Lenses / Re: Headed to Hawaii -- let's talk gear / locations
« on: January 03, 2014, 05:32:16 PM »
Great feedback on the humidity -- that happened to me in Puerto Rico once.  And that A/C hotel room situation is 100% going to happen again.  What's a best practice there?  Let the camera come up to temp before changing lenses?  Is there any need for ziplocks and desiccant packs when bringing my gear back into the hotel room?

- A
Hot air is capable of holding much more humidity than cold air. Relative humidity is a way of expressing how near the air is to its moisture holding limits. 100% RH is where you start getting moisture deposited on everything (dew point). However, seal that air in a bag and heat it up, while the water content is obviously identical, it'll drop below 100% RH. Dew point is a way of expressing at what temperature the humidity of the air will hit 100% RH - in the tropics, it could be 32'C, yet dew point could be as high as 29'C. Colder temperate climates preclude such high dew points, but the more dramatic change in temperature each day can result in dew point being reached as the temperature drops overnight.

A cold object in a hot humid environment is a no-no. Think of a cold beer straight from the fridge in the tropics - almost straight away you'll get moisture all over it. This is simply because the air on the surface of the bottle has cooled down below the dew point, and the moisture from the air covers it, often running down the bottle to form a puddle. A camera stored in a heavily air conditioned hotel room is much like a beer stored in the fridge. Big, heavy surfaces (metal and glass) which have a high thermal conductivity (unlike plastic), but due to their mass they retain temperature for some time. This spells disaster when taking your camera out of the fridge (hotel room). The best bet is to utilise the drier air of the hotel room to form protection while it warms up - put it in a sealed plastic bag before leaving and let the heat soak into it in the dry air. When it's up to temperature, take it out of the bag.

The other way around, whatever you do, don't use a bag. A hot object in cold dry air has no potential to invoke dew point, so leaving it out of a bag is perfect. However, cool down hot humid air, and like a cold winters morning in a temperate climate, it'll deposit its moisture over every surface it can reach. So, don't put the camera in a sealed bag when you walk into your cold hotel room!

My last trip to the tropics involved a long stay in a house without any aircon. No moisture issues with my gear at all, but there were rather severe heat build up issues with me  :-\

164
My 2 cents is that an f2.4 1/3.2 inch sensor of the nexus 5 will give an effective depth of field of somewhere around f11+ (in full frame terms) so everything will always be in focus (because the sensor is so small). However you will still be benefitting from f2.4 in shutter speed terms (because f2.4 is f2.4 in terms of light transmision, assuming there is no light loss)

Whereas on your 60d to get f11 equivalent depth of field you'll need to be around F8 which will kill your shutter speeds.

I agree with the sentiment above that its easier to handhold a camera phone and seemingly take a better still.

But in IQ and NR terms, in anything less than perfect lighting conditions,. the DSLR should always be better

However...... +1 need samples to truly compare.

You are right that its the equivalent of f11+. A 1/3.2" sensor has a 7.61x crop factor. Scaled up to FF, its the equivalent of an f18 aperture. (f2.4 x 7.61 crop)

As a result of such a sensor with an area 58 times smaller than FF (7.61 squared), a mere 1/58th of the light lands on the sensor if mounted behind a lens which has an imaging circle big enough for both sensors. That means that ISO 100 on the Nexus 5 is the equivalent of ISO 5800 on a FF DSLR in terms of S/N ratio - hence the very strong detail destroying NR used on smart phones. Using it at ISO 440 gives a S/N ratio the same as pushing a FF DSLR up to ISO 25,600 (assuming the same generation tech between the two).

In 1.6x 60D terms, the Nexus 5 at ISO 100 is like a 60D with a lens at 19mm and f11, shooting at ISO 3600 - with the NR cranked up to 11.

I'd be very interested to see what Omar is experiencing with the shots from both cameras - you get much more freedom with settings on a DSLR, so while it's capable of a lot more, it's also so much easier to get things wrong. Without seeing the images, we can only speculate. Omar - care to post the pictures?

Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 39