October 02, 2014, 06:34:26 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 - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 08:00:41 PM »
Wouldn't this sort of sensor be incredibly helpful for sports/action?  Being able to bring up my sports pictures in post without degrading the image would be extremely useful for maintaining high shutter speeds and lower ISO's.  It seems like the images hold up way better than my 5D3 shooting at a high ISO.

There's no high ISO difference between the two. Check the IR RAWs which are available.

Underexposing for more shutter speed then pushing in post? I suppose you could argue that the Nikon would give more room here. But the further you push the less tonal separation and the higher contrast you get. I'm not sure how good an athlete's face would look at +4 or +5. I've struggled with this issue at +2 and it is NOT sensor related. It's just the way tonality is encoded.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can the new 7d mark ii challenge the 1d mark iv?
« on: October 01, 2014, 03:14:21 PM »
Going by the IR Comparometer there's not much IQ difference, but the 7D2 does have less color noise at high ISO (I compared both at ISO 100 and 6400). The 7D2 has a slight resolution edge (not really visible in JPEG) and a slight high ISO edge (especially once you shrink down to 16 MP), but only slight.

Features? If you don't care about the crop difference (some people really liked APS-H) then I think the 7D2 takes this. 7D2 will have iTR tracking, more cross points, and lower light AF capability. It also has a larger buffer.

Still, if I owned a 1D4 I wouldn't necessarily run out and sell it to buy the 7D2. (Well...I might because I don't like the size and weight of the 1D bodies.) It's a testament to the 1D4 that it holds up so well against today's lineup.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 02:50:25 PM »
Is it only me? Or am I the only one prefering the SOOC pictures in the review compared to the post processed ones?

Not just you, that immediately stuck out to me.

The more I look at high profile wedding photographers the more I want to shoot my own wedding (don't ask how).

"Do you, take this woman..."
"Hold on a minute, my CF card is full."


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 02:40:29 PM »
Its utterly amazing to me that all of you are falling all over yourselves to say how worthless better sensors are when you all know full well you'd be crowing from the rooftops if this was a review of the 5DIV.

Subtract the messy corner shot and it might as well be a review of the 5D3. That is the only shot in the review that the 5D3 couldn't handle and do just as well.

Again, the confirmation bias lately among Exmor / Nikon / Sony fans is staggering.

If that 5 stop pushed photo comparison were flipped and the 5D3 shot looked like the D750 shot and vice versa, none of you would be saying "yeah, well I don't need all that DR, harumph".  You'd be laughing at Sony/Nikon and calling them garbage sensors.  The amount of denial on this forum is insane.

I can honestly say that if the situation were reversed and a Nikon fan asked me about it my evaluation would be the same: in the occasional extreme case it is valuable, but otherwise makes no difference and I would not switch brands over such a minor practical difference.

Those Exmor sensors are clearly better and in a way that would be extremely useful in a variety of shooting situations. 

Then how come every comparison where you can see the difference is a contrived test? None of his pushed wedding shots would have been difficult on the 5D3. SOOC they are brighter then many of the pushed shots forum members here have posted in the past, including my 7D landscape comparison.

One last question: for those of you who think that the Sony sensor advantages are completely unnecessary - an opinion I have seen expressed over and over and over -

I don't think I've seen that exact opinion expressed. I think everyone agrees it can be beneficial. But there's a big difference between "occasionally helps" and "the 5D3 is only good for Facebook."

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 06:54:06 AM »
Yup. The pricing of the D750 shows just how much price gouging Canon has been involved in with the 5D3.

In fairness there are plenty of complaints from the Nikon crowd that the D750 has a more consumer UI and build. I've never heard anyone say that about the 5D3.

Still, what was a fair price years ago is looking too high against today's competition.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: September 30, 2014, 06:39:35 PM »
I didn't see anything in his review that the 5D3 wouldn't have captured just as well EXCEPT for the +5 stop test he shot of a messy corner in a room.

The actual wedding shots he pushed? I've pushed landscape files harder then that on an old 7D. The confirmation bias among the DR crowd is ridiculous.

The ISO 9000 shot? The D750 does not show an advantage at 12800 over the 5D3 (files are already up at IR) so...yeah...another shot the Canon would have nailed.

The buffer and AF? Sound about the same as the 5D3 with a fast card.

Where the D750 does clobber the 5D3 is on price. I don't know when the 5D4 is coming out, but if it's not before Christmas then I think Canon should drop the price on the 5D3 to hold users over until the 5D4. The 5D3 really is priced too high right now even though build quality / UI would go to the 5D3 over the D750.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: September 30, 2014, 06:27:04 PM »
The 7D2 has better IQ than the 5D3, too.

What the?  ???

Yeah...no. BUT...the 7D2 may have better shadow latitude (i.e. less noise and banding) which is all the rage now days. I honestly hope Canon knocks it out of the park with the 5D4 because I'm sick of the DR debates  :P

Try not.  Do...or do not.  There is no try.   :P

Always with him what cannot be done with Canon. Hear he nothing that we say?  ;)

(How frightening is it that I didn't have to look that up???  :o )

That's not the argument. That's what it sounds you would like the argument to be, but it's not the argument.

The argument is simply that the OOC IQ is better on an Exmor. That's it.

As is apparent from the responses to these many threads, that's not what most people care about or wish to discuss. Especially when only one aspect is better, and then only in extreme shooting/processing conditions at low ISO, and everyone concurs on that point any way.

People seem far more interested in relevance. What is the practical end result when they print or show photos on screen? I would contend that it's not all that relevant because 99% of the time either both cameras are OK or both really need HDR. I do not deny that sometimes, however, the Exmor can produce a single frame where the Canon might need two.

I really screwed up my knee, and weather is blowing in rather fiercely now. I can hardly walk, so hiking up to my landscape spots (Long Lake is a great one, but it's a decent hike up past Brainard Lake, which is a nice area...and I can't take any hikes like that now. :().

I know you and I have been at each other's throats in past threads, and we will likely never agree on just how much that extra Exmor latitude matters or doesn't matter.

But all debating aside, I am sorry to hear about your injury and I hope you heal quickly and completely.

* This is a far better test scene then a Coke box or anything else produced here for this topic. Kudos to jrista for that.

* Once again we see a pair of images where the total dynamic range is nearly identical between Canon and Exmor (sorry DxO), but the noise in the Canon shot means the Exmor sensor has more shadow latitude. (Yes, I'm going to be a pain about using correct terminology.)

* Canon noise/banding overwhelms RAW NR with this combination of underexposure and a +4 or +5 push. No surprise there. I've had no trouble at +2.5, and can usually manage +3, but if highlight retention is driving your shadows deeper you're going to have noise, banding, and detail loss with Canon.

* That said, this test scene demonstrates something I've said all along: the range between both sensors being OK and both sensors needing HDR is rather narrow. Despite the severe underexposure the highlights were not preserved and are not recoverable. If they don't matter then you don't need to underexpose this scene to this degree and the 5D3 will work fine. If they do matter then neither sensor can handle this scene without lighting or HDR...and the 5D3 will work fine.

Sometimes Exmor is easier to work with, or produces the better shadows in print, or lets you work with one frame where you would want two on Canon. Just not as often as some imagine.

* I don't think jrista deserves snark for this thread. He started a DR specific thread with fair samples.

* At the same time, I don't think anyone deserves to be called a "Canon fanboy" for discussing the practicality of this shadow latitude difference, especially in light of some of the hyperbole seen on this forum.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Posting about sensors and DR!
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:08:36 PM »
I wish people would post RAWs. Of real world scenes. Optimally exposed. And present what they believe to be optimal processing, open to suggestions from others on how to improve.

A thread about IQ differences between sensors should be filled with usable samples, not 1,000 word essays.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 20, 2014, 04:34:57 AM »
Normalized difference is 11.7 vs 14.8 for the D810...

And that's where any knowledgeable person stops reading. >14 stops...from a linear 14-bit ADC...kind of impossible  ;)

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:13:12 PM »
You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less.

Do you know what a 1 stop difference looks like? Because Fred Miranda's test didn't show even 1 stop difference. Tonal range captured was the same, but with more noise on A vs. B.

Even DxO doesn't claim <11 stops for the 5D mark III :o

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:09:40 PM »
I could provide evidence. In the past, I have provided evidence.

You provided a long list of links to HDR photographs that you claimed were not HDR photographs. And a sunflower shot with no Exmor version for comparison. The Coke box wasn't yours and while it showed a difference...which everyone acknowledged before the Coke box...it didn't show nearly the difference you claim.

So, until such time as I have a chance to do that in an effective manner, I will be ignoring all requests from you.

Will you be providing evidence for both the HDR without bracketing claim and the new Milky Way claim?

It was very satisfying to watch you back peddle and re-frame after seeing the IR samples btw  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 50