September 02, 2014, 03:46:33 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 - dtaylor

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 02:58:25 AM »
I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.

You'll never buy a camera that's relatively cheap ($1,300 for the A7), can use your lenses, and solves the problem which you have spent countless hours making...hundreds?...thousands?...of posts about because of a file format that maybe, on rare occasion, might result in an artifact, even though otherwise the camera completely eliminates the noise and artifacts you're so upset about???

I'm done...I'm out...no more SoNikonSuperMegaDR threads. I can't help these people. They need therapists, not sensors.

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 02:54:30 AM »
This has absolutely nothing to do with technique. My technique is not the problem. Neither is it an exposure problem.

No, it's a problem of what you have built up in your mind. You imagine that with Exmor you could just ditch bracketing, HDR, GND. You can't. The cases were Exmor lets you get away with a single exposure are relatively rare. They come up. They are not the majority.

If your blend/HDR/GND shot is correct then you should NOT have to push shadows or deal with shadow noise. In my blends my shadows are typically brighter then I want them to be, and one of my final steps is pulling them back down. I have never struggled with shadow noise in a blend where I had a properly exposed frame for the shadows.

Quote
This is where your Photographic DR is unhelpful. Your Photographic DR tells you nothing about the literal, physical capabilities of the hardware.

Except, of course, for the system's DR  ::)

Quote
However, given Canon's trend...I fully expect RN at low ISO to INCREASE. The 7D had 8.6e-. The 70D has 13.5e- (and with smaller pixels to boot!)

Yet the 70D has...observably...2 more stops of total DR. Once again trying to convert sensel SNR ('engineering DR') to actual system photographic DR fails  ::)

Quote
IMO, HDR, sky replacement, tonemapping, manual blending, etc. shouldn't be necessary unless you have a truly extreme situation.

Landscapes involving bright skies and shadowed foregrounds have more then 13 stops of luminance range and require management (HDR; blending; GND) with ANY modern camera. Interior shots with windows also often require this.

Outside of this most scenes have less luminance range.

Quote
It's entirely possible I like to shoot scenes with more dynamic range. It's also entirely possible my standards are higher than yours (that's not an insult, people have different standards).

It's entirely possible your beliefs about the difference Exmor would make are based on little more then imagination, and it's time for you to buy/rent a Nikon or Sony and find out  ;)

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 01:20:20 AM »
What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality in a Canon DSLR body.

You have the budget for a $12k lens but you haven't ordered one of the Sony A7's yet?  :o

If you can afford a lens that's the price of a small car...if HDR landscapes are that important to you...if you really believe Exmor will revolutionize how you shoot HDR landscapes...then order the A7 or A7R and an EF adapter.

You don't even have to switch. You don't have to give up your Canon lenses, or your DSLRs in situations where you need fast AF and shooting. (And please don't tell me you always need to push shadows 5 stops so the Sony doesn't solve anything. Most scenes don't have that great of a luminance range.)

Shooting sports, action, any scene that doesn't require shadows pushed 9,001 stops? Grab the 5D3.

Shooting landscapes or interiors from a tripod? Grab the Sony. That should hold you over until Canon changes their ADC architecture.

Problem solved.

4
As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?

To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D

Yes. Especially when there are three Sony FF bodies that you can adapt Canon lenses to and still have aperture control, AF, and IS! You don't even have to switch, just add. AF is dog slow, but who cares for a high DR landscape?

If you're posting in thread after thread on a Canon forum complaining about DR but you haven't switched or added a Sony A7 body, then DR isn't actually the issue.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: Today at 01:02:04 AM »
I thought it is not the camera, it is the photographer. Are they wrong?

It's not even the camera. It's the super high DR zero shadow noise can photograph a black cave interior with the sun in full view and get detail in both amazing Exmor sensor.

People tried photography before Exmor, but it didn't really work out  ;D

6
Glass has gotten better, film no longer exits.

Speak for yourself, I ran a roll of Kodak through my Pentax MX last week :) It is excellent DSLR detox

Yes...but...what was the shadow noise of the film like, and could it compare to Exmor?  ;D

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:32:51 AM »
Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

Have you tried an X-T1, A77II or a6000?  Modern EVF's are completely capable of keeping up with action, no problem.

I don't think any of them are as good for action. And believe me, I want to see EVFs take over because they are far better for judging exposure and white balance and they're better for MF lenses (unless you have a custom focusing screen). But I just don't think they're there yet, and I imagine at least the next generation of sports cams (7D2; 1DX mkII) will need OVFs.

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:26:25 AM »
Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19",

BRB...have to tear up all my 17x22" portfolios  ;D

Quote
they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall.

I know a lunar landing conspiracy theorist who is more reasonable.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:24:26 AM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........

 ;D

If the 5D4 doesn't have 25 stops of noise free DR...GAME OVER MAN. GAME. OVER.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:49:52 AM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:47:10 AM »
I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.

Trimming most of your post because...how on Earth do you even find time to write that much? And that's coming from someone who writes too much on forums!  :o

All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending two frames.

For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.

I can only guess because I've never been out shooting with you to observe what you're doing. But you talk as if every landscape you do has horrendous shadow noise. If that's happening then you need to adjust your shooting and processing.

You've built up in your mind how much better an Exmor sensor would be, how it would revolutionize your workflow. It's better, but it's not going to revolutionize your workflow or eliminate HDR/GND. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a D810 or a Sony A7 series if you want one. Just don't build up Exmor so high in your mind that you buy one and end up complaining on their boards.

Quote
So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.

I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:20:03 AM »
Quote
Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

You're not applying logic. Your understanding of this is simply not correct therefore your attempt to "convert" what you see on the screen into a "percentage of lost tones" is nonsense.

Quote
The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

You have no clue what the DR of the scene was because you didn't include a step wedge nor document a series of spot meter readings. Which is why your statement above is nonsense.

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:30:44 PM »
I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

If one has more highlight range then a "best possible" test would exploit that. That said, I'm not sure to what degree this is the case if at all. Just pointing out that it is something to consider.

Quote
Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:22:23 PM »
I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.

I know one who gave his D3s away after the D4 came out.

Quote
As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.

Professional tests that control for all variables show otherwise.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:16:35 PM »
The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.

The pattern you see in the box is inconsequential...when it survives at all...at anything less then pixel peeping. I also question whether it has anything at all to do with noise or is simply a result of 36 v 22 MP. When pixel peeping you will see tiny pattern and texture differences between the two. It's just never worth thinking about at <100%.

Quote
My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.

I don't think I've ever seen green blotches in skin, even when lifting shadow detail 2-3 stops. But if I did, I would give the scene more exposure the next time around.

When I review work online or in print, I see a difference between old DSLRs (i.e. 10D / 20D) and modern DSLRs. I see a difference between cheap glass and really good glass. I see a difference between P&S sensors and m43 or larger sensors. I see a difference between people who know how to use HDR and GND filters, and those that don't use them at all.

I don't see a difference between D800 and 5D3 shots, or Sonikon/Canon in general.

If the differences ever become so great that they're apparent in real life photographs made for art and not pixel peeping, then I'll be one of the people arguing that Canon should catch up or buy Sony sensors. Until then...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41