November 26, 2014, 04:09:16 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 ... 55
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: LuLa likes the Samsung NX1
« on: November 25, 2014, 08:45:53 PM »
Well since there is no standard for the term "weather sealing" it is hard to tell if they got it right or wrong. No one is claiming that the camera is "weather sealed" only that it has "weather sealing".  So if it is sealed against dust and minor splashes, it probably does have "weather sealing"

That's the problem with camera manufacturers using the term "weather sealing"

I agree in general, but given the examination of the 7D mark II I think it's safe to say the 7D2 is on a different level of sealing. The NX1 is probably comparable to something like a 60D or 70D.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:40:37 PM »
They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features'  ::). And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode  ::).

Fair points when it comes to video...maybe enough that "mixed" should be "yes."

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:39:19 PM »
Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me.

"Ways"...they are behind in base ISO DR.

And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints

I've performed blind and even double blind tests and neither I nor my colleagues could sort the prints. Forgive me if I don't take your word on this one.

You start to see small differences at 30/36". And I would emphasize "start" and "small."

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:13:31 PM »
In regard to mirrorless? Yes.
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

In regard to sensors? No.
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon has improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?"  ::)

In regard to lenses? No, except maybe on price.
This is where Canon innovates and really delivers, more then anyone else. Heck, there's probably an even split between people who buy an A7 to use Leica glass and people who buy an A7 to use Canon glass! The only complaint is the price on new L glass. Remember when Canon beat Nikon on price to?  :(

In regard to service/support? No, they are arguably the best out there.

In regard to video? Mixed.

DPAF is actually fairly innovative and a joy to use with a touch screen. But they are clearly protecting their cinema line by holding off on 4k introduction in consumer DSLRs.

And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

In regard to "wow this is NEW" factor? Yes.

Even though the buying public still runs to DSLRs, those who talk about cameras are enamored with mirrorless. The MILC companies are thrashing around introducing new bodies, configurations, and features hoping to boost sales. Those who talk about cameras see this as "innovation." Sometimes it is, but the reality is that they are struggling with underlying problems that hamper consumer and professional adoption.

Example: The NX1 is "exciting" because Samsung never had anything like this before, and because they have pushed paper specs. The 7D2 is "boring" because the 7D before it was so good to begin with there's not a lot to improve. But which camera actually serves the needs of the sports/wildlife market? The 7D2 because the NX1 doesn't have any lenses, initial reports are that AF still struggles in situations where you would expect mirrorless to struggle, and few action photographers want to deal with an EVF. You can't overcome that with "exciting."

For heaven's sake, yes, take a 7D2.

The weather sealing is not mere marketing. disassembled the 7D mark II and found it to be the most heavily sealed body they've cracked open. Guarantee you the 6D does not have that level of sealing. It matters. Enough that I would consider two 7D mark II's for a trip like that, or a 7D mark II and a 5D3. I would expect an unprotected 6D to fail in those conditions.

I've left my original 7D in the snow to shoot star trails, only to walk out later and find solid ice all over it...and it was still shooting. I've also drenched it in rain. The only time it had a problem was when a non weather sealed lens was attached, and fortunately drying it out took care of it. The 7D2 goes further and seals some points that I was surprised, reading the LensRentals article, were not sealed before.

As someone noted above, no weather sealing can protect you while changing lenses, cards, and batteries. DO NOT do this immediately after moving between warm/cold environments. Stuff your equipment in a bag...lens attached...and give it time to acclimate before detaching and opening things. I remember reading about the LL 5D2 fiasco and some of the details on forums put the 5D2 in a better light, i.e. bodies were failing because people were not allowing them to acclimate before exposing them to the air (lens off, battery out, etc). Still, I think the 5D2 had some weak points including the vertical grip.

Finally: remember that some weather sealed lenses must have a filter on the front to complete the sealing. The 17-40L is one, but there are others.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 04:46:51 PM »
Sorry to disagree but it's not just about reach. Setting aside the debate about the  smaller sensor and the effect that has on image quality, pro's and con's, my 5D3 feels like a lumbering dinosaur after shooting with the 7D2 for two weeks. It really is that much more responsive. I can see how people get hooked on those 1 series bodies.  If you are shooting with a 1DX or 1D4 than it's hard to make the pro 7D2 argument. But the AF and 10/fps are alone worthy of adding this camera to a 6D or 5D3 if you are shooting moving subjects.

No, it's not just about reach, and I didn't mean to imply it was. What I meant was if a 5D3 owner asked me about buying a 7D2 ONLY for additional reach...i.e. he didn't care about anything else...I couldn't recommend it just for that.

If you want the incredible responsiveness of the AF and 10 fps, by all means, 7D2. Brand new, nothing short of $6,500 is going to get you a more responsive action DSLR.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:16:08 PM »
I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.

Yeah...I clicked all the way through to Flickr to make sure I was viewing the original size, flipped between the browser tabs a couple times...and had to come back here to read which was 5D3 and which was 7D2.

I say it all the time even though it offends people and makes me a pariah, but if you expect A to be better then B you will believe it is better and rationalize that it is better even when someone has flipped the labels and you are actually praising B! This is seen in wine tasting, audio equipment testing, photo print comparisons.... Double blind the test and people often can't tell the two apart where they previously thought the difference was huge...JUST HUGE!

That said, I would not normally recommend a 5D3 owner get a 7D2 for extra reach. Too much is made of the difference. You have to be cropping much further then APS-C...and then printing observe the reach advantage of a crop sensor. It comes into play when you're left with 8 MP from the crop sensor, and <3 MP from the FF, and you need to print 16x24. And if you run into that situation it is significant. You can pick it out in a double blind test. But honestly ask yourself how often you run into that situation? If it's very often you might be better served by a new lens any way.

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


I've discovered how DxO comes up with its overall score.

Color Depth: 10%
Low Light / High ISO: 20%
Low ISO Dynamic Range: 9,001%

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.

Your logic could be used to excuse away any differences between any cameras.

Obviously not differences that are outside of the capability of post processing to erase.

If you want to compare sensor performance then RAWs converted with neutral settings (as neutral as you can make them; don't think it's ever perfectly neutral) is best. But I'm most interested in practical results when the entire imaging chain is in play. In this case there's very little to pick between formats at low ISO.

Actually, the 7D2 can do even better!  The Digital Picture has found that with a very fast 1066x UDMA 7 CF card the 7D2 can exceed its 31 frame RAW buffer by about 50%.  It can do 47 to 49 RAW frames:
And after the buffer is *full*, it can still shoot at 5.7 fps, faster than some cameras shoot with an empty buffer.  :D

Darn it Canon, by exceeding the rated buffer, you're doing a bad job of the "crippling" that people are always talking about.  ;)

Music to my ears. I want to always shoot RAW, and 3s worth of burst at max fps is just short of what I would like. I can hit the buffer limit on the 7D in RAW.

Nearly 5s should cover what I do perfectly.

And 5.7 fps when the buffer is full? Nice work Canon.

This is the nature of pixel density and FF vs. crop sensors. Crop sensors cram more pixels into a smaller area. Think about it, the 7D2 has the same MP as the 6D and 5D3, with a sensor that is almost half the size. Even the 1D series employed a 1.3x crop APS-H sensor for a number of versions. Hence, the photosites on these crop bodies are smaller resulting in noisier (or "blurrier," as you call it) images.

It's not a noise issue, at least not at low to mid ISO. It's just the nature of lenses. The finer the detail the lower the contrast of said detail. Given the same scene and lens, when you step back with a crop camera to fit the scene onto the smaller sensor the lens is projecting those details at a lower point on its MTF curve. Therefore the detail contrast is lower.

Of course that's just one factor. Another factor when comparing images SOOC is that cameras have different AA filters, sharpening defaults, etc.

At the end of the day though the sharpness differences beteween m43, APS-C, and FF don't survive post processing at low to mid ISO. People seem to consider sharpness differences SOOC or with RAW defaults, at lower ISOs, to be very meaningful. I consider them meaningless. At those ISOs you choose your sharpness in camera or in post.

Again, I'm not seeing a tremendous bit to get excited about with the 7D2's sensor.  There's a ton of value elsewhere in the camera, but if you were holding out for 2 stops better low light performance over the 7D, the 7D2 may have fallen short of that (admittedly high) mark.

The various tests out there do not tell the whole story. The 7D falls off a cliff after 3200, and even at 3200 is very sensitive to scene luminance range and exposure (underexpose a low key scene and you're done). The noise is blotchy and disruptive in a way that defies NR and printing beyond 3200.

The 7D2 does not do this from what I've seen so far. It doesn't fall off a cliff. For subjects which are not dominated by fine detail you can actually clean up and print ISO 16,000 to 8x12 and be fine. It will look as good as ISO 800 color neg film used to look.

That's why the various tests and opinions are all over the place. Well exposed, high key scene at 3200? Difference is less then a stop (but certainly more then 1/3rd stop #DxOJoke). OK exposure of a low key scene at 6400? The 7D isn't even usable.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Owners first thoughts
« on: October 31, 2014, 02:55:12 AM »
Here's a couple of ISO 12800--yes, 12,800!! taken with the 70-200 + 2X  on manual and dev with NO changes in DPP except adding the lens correction.  It think they are pretty incredible for the ISO.  They would have been so ugly before.

Clearly the 7D mark II has improved high ISO over the original 7D. By quite a bit it seems as 12,800 was completely unusable on the original.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Whats wrong with the 70 D ?
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:49:54 AM »
I'm in the field with a 70D now, and I can say the keeper rate is much higher than 7D. The 7D's buttery AA filter and imprecise focus was an obstacle. The 70D is about 35% sharper, and just gets more shots.

"Buttery AA filter"? Why, then, are the Imaging Resource RAW files...converted in ACR with the same default settings for both...nearly identical in terms of sharpness?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 55