September 20, 2014, 02:20:43 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 ... 49
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 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  ;)

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:26:26 PM »
Your still misunderstanding. You could make the 5D III image as sharp, by sharpening. My point is you wouldn't have to do the extra step of sharpening the 5D III image to achieve the same results.

I would mess with sharpening on ANY photo. The two Nikon guys I know pretty well...both of whom have a ton of Nikon pro equipment...sharpen every one of their photos. The D810 doesn't eliminate that step. What step does it eliminate exactly?

Also, with a more critical eye, I do think that some people could pick out differences between two photos

I would like to see that pair of prints.

There are certain things about D800 milky way photos that I particularly like...a richness of black background sky levels, that are not just pure flat black but still nuanced with detail, as the sky really is, that I don't see in milky way photos taken with a 5D III. There is also a crisper look to stars in milky way photos taken with D800/D810 that just isn't quite there with the 5D III.

Can you point to a pair shot under similar conditions that illustrate this?

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:19:04 PM »
The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end.

Despite having more pixels, the D810 did not "capture better data" in the IR studio scene. So I'm curious as to how it would save any time, especially when it takes your computer longer to process each step with 36 MP.

I'm not against higher resolution when it yields a benefit. But jumping from 22/24 to 36 MP with today's sensor technology seems to yield no real benefit.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:12:57 PM »
I did see a lot of pictures, taken on the same moment from the same scene, but if we mix them, we can't tell from who the picture was (5d3, D800, D810), unless.... we dive into the pixels, and then I agree, but that's not the way we look at a photo?

Some people can't see the forest for the trees.  A few people can't even see the trees because they prefer to look at pixels instead of pictures.

Some people can't see the trees because they were shot at midnight on a moonless night and haven't been pushed 5 stops yet  ;D

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:44:28 PM »
I don't really see significant differences.  Since 36 MP >> 22 MP, I must conclude that your test is flawed. fairness DPReview did not underexpose a black cat in a coal mine and push 5 stops with all noise reduction turned off.

If they had done over man.

Update: I added this to the original post, but these were from Imaging Resource, not DPReview. I had them on my HD already from a prior comparison and just typed the wrong site.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:29:25 PM »
Tony Northrup made a transparent infomercial. If he isn't yet on Nikon's payroll, it isn't for lack of trying on his part.

Having him on your payroll would backfire. His work is so transparent, late night infomercial that anyone watching it would immediately assume your product was actually the weaker one and you were trying to bash the competition  ;D

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:26:07 PM »
I think this is why we haven't seen a 'very high' mp FF sensor from Canon yet. Once you go beyond a certain level of potential resolution the format becomes the restriction in the sense of the magnification (focal length of lens) that you have to use pro rata, the size of image capture and then the magnification required to view the image. So smaller format equals shorter focal length (less magnification) equals smaller capture equals greater magnification to view.

Yep. Saddens me to say this, but I don't think we are going to get those wall sized detailed prints you see from LF film / MF digital shooters in 35mm format (except for stitching of course). A somewhat affordable Canon MF system with brand new lenses designed to the best of their abilities would excite me much more then a 50 MP Canon DSLR. (But even "somewhat affordable" would probably land in the $20k range for a minimum kit.)

Incidentally this is why ( excluding dof, low light etc etc) you just can't tell the difference in a (moderately enlarged) image from APS against FF when the subject is close to you and filling the frame, but you can when the subject detail is much further away, ie landscapes.

I would go a step further and say it can be hard to tell even in many landscape shots. But basically we're in agreement here.

We're in a golden age of photography. A relatively poor guy can pick up a Rebel and a decent lens and produce IQ nearly as good as a D810 / A7R with the latest, most expensive lenses. It should be even more about the image content now, but instead we become even more fixated on tiny differences and exaggerate their significance to silly proportions. (Isn't this a known phenomenon in psychology? Where people presented with many very good choices become more stressed and analytical then when they have one good and a few worse choices?)

When I step back and think about how far technology has come, I am completely blown away by what a $300 EOS M + EF-M 18-55 cheapo kit lens + ACR/PS can produce. Jump in a DeLorean and take that thing back to the 1990's and it literally would have been able to hang with medium format film up to 16x24".

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:10:31 PM »
But yes, put the very best of lenses on the D8xx and you have more resolving power.

Put the same lens on the 5D3 via an adapter, not really. Not what people imagine. There is a difference, it's just incredibly difficult to reveal.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 02:07:13 PM »
Not to mention the 85mm f/1.2's enormous CA on the sides such that it doesn't sharpen up until somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4:

Oh boy...

The Nikon is sharper across the frame, but that is some of the most disgusting CA I've ever seen. I've seen Chinese c mount lenses with less CA!

I'm not going to wade into the AF mud fest because without reproducible tests...or a really calm, rational, ego free group of people who also have hundreds of hours of stick time on's pointless.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:50:02 PM »
Are you saying that the 'naturally crisper, sharper images' from the 36 MP D8x0 can be readily and easily distinguished from images taken with a 24, 22, 20, or 18 MP FF sensor when downsampled for small prints or web-sized images?

I don't know about him, but I will go on record as saying that anyone who walked into a gallery of 24x36" prints made using both cameras, but by the same photographer, would never know the prints came from two different cameras.

Even at larger sizes I don't think anyone would know unless you showed them identical prints (i.e. same scene and all factors but sensor made equal) and asked them to look for differences. Then a critical reviewer observing very closely (i.e. 6-12" from the print) might pick up a difference here or there.

Northrup said the 5DIII was ok for Facebook, but you're saying the D810 would be better for Facebook?

The claims just get more and more ridiculous, don't they?

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 18, 2014, 01:39:32 PM »
Sorry, but there is a relatively large difference in detail between the two. That has nothing to do with dynamic range, simply the pixel size. The D800 resolves quite a lot more detail than the 5D III. That either translates into the ability to enlarge more with the same level of detail as smaller enlargements with the 5D III, or it translates into naturally crisper, sharper images when downsampling for smaller prints or online publication.

"Large difference in detail" #1

"Large difference in detail" #2

"Large difference in detail" #2

All images: left 5D mark III, right Nikon D810, DPReview studio scene RAW files at ISO 100 / NR0 converted using ACR standard settings. 5D3 file was resized to match (Bicubic Sharper) and then had light sharpening applied. I encourage everyone to download test files such as these and try them for yourself.

At best one can say tiny high contrast details are rendered a little better at pixel peeping sizes, and the D810 will sometimes pick up light, small patterns or textures missed on the 5D3. Shown at 50% on a 96 ppi monitor (i.e. 25x40" print) this stuff would be invisible. In print it would be invisible without a loupe.

We are well into diminishing returns for small format. People talk endlessly about AA filters and 22/24 vs. 36 MP yet they hardly matter at all even when pixel peeping tripod mounted shots made with primes at optimum apertures. Subject lighting, lens, technique, post processing, each 1,000x more important to fine detail and sharpness. I hope when Canon releases a high MP body they A) don't charge 1D prices, and B) shoot past 50 MP even if high ISO suffers. Because at this point I'm wondering if even >50 MP would yield truly significant differences in print without also jumping to a MF sized sensor.

This, btw, is why I'm going with the Sony A7 over the A7R. I see the exact same thing there. I would rather have electronic first curtain shutter, the phase detect points, and the extra cash in my pocket for lenses.

Correction: this is the Imaging Resource studio scene (RAW / ISO 100 / NR0 / converted by me using ACR standard). I had these files on my HD already from when I was comparing 5D3 / A7 / A7R / D8x0. Sorry about that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:46:08 AM »
While these may show what we are looking for, the examples would never prove anything without knowing the full level of control that each shot had.

That was a post to illustrate what total DR means and what shadow latitude means. That's all. Not a comparison of bodies (I used Dean's shots for convenience). So if you looked up photographic dynamic range and shadow latitude in a textbook on photography you might see photos just like that. An illustration of the meaning of words.

I did this because there is severe misunderstanding by certain people in this thread regarding the meaning of these two terms. When you push shadows and see roughly the same detail but more noise that is not a difference in dynamic range but in shadow latitude. If it was a DR difference there wouldn't be any detail in one, but blocked/clipped blacks.

That's all  :)

Lenses / Re: 18-55 EF-M STM lens
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:28:56 AM »
I just bought this lens hoping to get somre mover versatality out of my EOS-M camera.  On the scene intelligent Auto picture taking mode (which I use 99% of the time) I am noticing that the images are really soft.  I saw some reviews say the same thing and this is more pronounced indoors with lower light. 

Aside from applying a sharpen filter or mask - is there a setting I should use on the camera to adjust for this?  Thanks - Tom

Mine is very sharp. But there's always sample variation. Mount it on a tripod, manually focus on a flat target, shoot different apertures, see what you get.

If it's soft when other possibilities are eliminated then you might need to exchange it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 13, 2014, 12:24:35 AM »
Maybe photos will help explain terminology.

This is the same (or similar as we shall see) total DR:

This is what less total DR would look like if there was a large difference in total DR:

And this is similar total DR, but with less shadow latitude because one has color/banding noise that the other does not:

I say "similar total DR" because there is clipping in the upper left corner of the Canon image pushed. This is a total DR difference. It's that 1 stop difference that IR measures, though we have to push the shadows to realize it's even there in this case.

(Note: these are SMALL screenshots for illustration only. So please, no one flip out over some artifact of size and start screaming that the Nikon RAW file is really better or the Canon RAW file is really worse. These tiny screenshots have diagonal banding that's not in the RAW files for example.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 49