April 20, 2014, 08:09:48 PM

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 ... 30
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: Today at 06:09:57 AM »
I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 19, 2014, 07:29:57 AM »
Page after page of theorizing mixed with your typical claims that "crop will never do it."

The 70D is the closest glimpse we have at a future 7D mkII. Looking at the Imaging Resource Comparometer I would say the 1D4 is still a bit better at ISO 6400. Though it doesn't appear to be a difference that would matter at the print sizes normally associated with ISO 6400.

ISO 3200...once you've equalized the viewing size...is a wash. Sneezing while your RAW converter is running will make more of a difference than exists between these two sensors at ISO 3200.

I can't imagine the 7D mkII will have worse IQ then the 70D, so yes, I think it will "come close" to the 1D4 and in fact "match" it at ISO 3200 and below. Possibly even at 6400. Especially true if prints are more important to you then going blind studying 300% magnifications in PS.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:50:24 PM »
You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

And this is coming from someone who loves his EOS M, wants to see more EOS M bodies and lenses, and thinks mirrorless in general is underrated by the public.

The DSLR isn't going any where, and Canon's profits will continue to come from brisk Rebel sales.

Release the info. All of it. Canon should not be charging for design flaws that fall under warranty.

EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:36:11 PM »
The M, a timid release of a half hearted product... Canon could easily make something that would blow our minds and set the camera world on fire, they chose not to. Instead they let Ricoh, Fuji and Sony have some moments of glory. Their fear of harming Rebel sales allows these other brands some sort of safety net. For now I guess.

The bummer is that the M didn't miss the mark by much. It's a great camera and gets as much use as any of my DSLRs. I love it for street and travel. Both the 22mm and 18-55 IS are great lenses, especially considering their prices.

Canon stumbled on the original AF algorithms, was timid in the release, was priced too high, and then failed to follow up. If they had fixed the AF sooner, shown some commitment with new lenses, and priced it appropriately for the U.S. market things would have been different.

Now? Who knows. I can't imagine Canon would drop the mount, at least not as long as mirrorless is hot in Asia. But I have no idea if they will ever fully commit to mirrorless and reintroduce it to the U.S. I'm glad I have my M an I'm glad I live in a world where it's easy to order bodies and lenses from overseas.

EOS Bodies / Re: UPDATE: EOS M2 Not Coming to North America
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:25:49 PM »
Too bad the gauntlet has poor battery life, an AF system not suitable for tracking moving subjects, and comes from a company notorious for not delivering long-term support for its own product lines.   ::)

Ummm...were you referring to the A7 or the M?  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS M2 Coming to North America & Europe?
« on: March 01, 2014, 07:23:40 PM »
2. Spot metering. JEEZ Canon, this has been a sore subject for so long, let's get that going already!

It's a LiveView camera. Why do you need anything other then full manual and your eyes?

Seriously. I don't bother with any AE mode or metering pattern on my M. I just spin the dial until the scene is correct on the LCD. It's a wonderful way to work, especially in tricky lighting scenarios. You could claim AE is faster, but I would guess it's not once you count AE failures.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 06:21:02 PM »
I think that "excellent detail and sharpness" is a matter of opinion. I thought my 7D+Sigma 50/1.4 was excellent, until I tried 5D2+50/1.8'II (I hated the build, pentagon aperture and AF noise, but it was SHARP!). FF wins thanks to either bigger pixels or more of them.

I'm going to be blunt because I've shot both combinations (owned both lenses at one time, now just the Sigma): at low ISO and wide apertures, if your final 7D+Sigma file doesn't look better then your final 5D2+NiftyFifty file something is wrong.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:06:44 AM »
This is why I have said (and got pounced on for it), that a future 50+ MP full frame camera, is rarely if ever going to fully resolve detail on all of its pixels on most every lens there is...

I wouldn't "pounce" on you for this, but I would disagree. If we were to scale up current APS-C densities they would equal 45 MP or more on FF. The number of lenses and aperture combinations that yield excellent detail and sharpness on my 7D and M are quite large actually. Granted it's more challenging to hold that across the frame on 35mm, but I don't doubt that a 50 MP FF body would prove excellent with good glass and a tripod or IS. I think we would be looking at 75-100 MP before there would be hardly any lenses or apertures that benefit.

Here is one of my favorite images that I shot with it.  It's not full size, because I try not to show those.  Camera was the 50D.


EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 28, 2014, 08:55:05 AM »
The resolution of the lens used in the Crop sensor needed to have 1.5 time more resolution than the one used in the FF to give us the same sharpness.

This is false. Resolution and detail contrast (sharpness) are two related but separate things. The measured resolution difference (in lpmm) between FF and APS-C sensors of comparable pixel counts is small as good lenses still comfortably out resolve sensors at MTF10. Adding more pixels to the APS-C sensor would not alter the lens MTF curve. The loss of detail contrast happens in the lens, not on the sensor. (Assuming AA filters of equal strength.)

Read this :

I would rather watch paint dry then read DxO theories.

For the pixel peepers, it's rather worrying the amount of resolution lost in cropped systems.

DPReview measured the 5D2's resolution to 2800/3300 (absolute/extinction). The 7D was measured to 2500/3100. The difference is smaller then the difference in sensor pixel count. (So much for DxO theories.)

There is very little to gain by sticking an L lens on a crop body.

Apparently you've never actually tried this. FYI, I can see the difference out of camera between the 70-200 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L IS on a 7D. The difference between either L lens and a consumer zoom on the same body is quite large. (The L vs L differences probably wouldn't survive post processing, but the L vs non-L differences definitely would.)

For example you won't gain 8MP in overall resolution by jumping from a 12MP 450D to a 20MP 70D (crop of course).

You will gain exactly 8 MP because MP is a measure of the number of photo sites on the sensor. The fact that DxO plays fast and loose with definitions and creates meaningless ones like "perceptual megapixels" is the first indication that they are a pseudo-science site.

Your percentage gain in image lpmm will not be equal to the gain in MP because there are losses. But the losses are nearly identical for a 12-20 MP jump in the 35mm format.

Can we possibly say this :
Lets assume a 20MP crop canon here....
20/1.6 = 12.5
12.5 being the maximum MP you could possibly hope to get.

No we can't say that. Strictly speaking that is absurd because MP always refers to the number of photo sites on the sensor. I know what you are trying to say, but we can't say it even with correct terminology because all observations are to the contrary (see below).

Answer : Yes it is. Bigger sensors capture more detail even when compared to a crop with the same MP. (6D vs 70D = no contest, 6D wins)

Detail != sharpness.

For sharpness, I agree that a 6D will be sharper out of camera all other factors being equal. And I'll add that the difference will not survive post processing unless the images were made above ISO 800.

For detail, Imaging Resource has measured and published the resolutions of both, and they are nearly identical. 2400/3400 for the 6D and 2500/3200 for the 70D.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 27, 2014, 05:19:34 PM »
Are there any physical explanations for this phenomenon?

Enlargement.  When comparing output of equivalent dimensions, the image from the smaller sensor needs to be enlarged more, and that results in a relatively softer image.

In the darkroom optical enlargement impacts sharpness again. But this isn't an issue with digital capture. The sharpness difference observed out of camera between APS-C and FF exists at the sensor at the moment of capture and is visible at 100% / pixel view.

Sometimes interpolation to screen resolutions impacts sharpness on its own. But so long as you have sufficient image resolution for the desired print size, digital interpolation or enlargement for printing rarely if ever impacts sharpness today.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF Sharper than crop?
« on: February 27, 2014, 05:12:26 PM »
The formal answer is that with any lens detail contrast drops as resolution increases. This relationship is illustrated by the lens MTF curve. A lens has more contrast at 10 lpmm then at 20 lpmm. When you frame a scene onto a smaller sensor, the details occur at a higher lpmm frequency and therefore have less contrast.

However, at low to mid ISO it's a meaningless difference because the contrast can easily be restored in post processing, whether in a tool like Photoshop or in camera using the sharpness setting. Detail contrast is not an unlimited good, and at ISO 800 and below it's trivial to make an APS-C file as sharp as an optimally processed FF file. At high ISO FF has a true sharpness advantage because when you apply extra sharpening to the ASP-C file you emphasize noise that's not in the FF file.

I choose the M over FF most of the time for macro because of working distance.

Bingo. You can get the shot either way, but the smaller sensor will give you a little more room to work.

6 pages of people arguing tiny differences that make little or no difference in the real world or your final images. Sensors are so good now that there are only two categories where format seems to matter at all:

* Really low light stuff like astrophotography and astro-landscapes. FF tends to dominate here though you still see good work from APS-C.

* Wall sized landscape prints with incredible detail and zero noise/artifacts. You have to see these in a gallery to appreciate them, and they are all scanned and digitally processed LF film, or MF digital.

For everything else it matters little whether it's FF, APS-C, or 4/3. For some reason we love to pretend otherwise.

Looking over the best macros at a photo sharing site like Flickr, the key to top rated macro work is not format, but mastering focus stacking and lighting. Which camera do you choose? Whichever one appeals to your budget and desired features.

Second, microlenses are used on ALL sensors nowadays. The advantage of microlenses is not solely given to APS-C sensors, therefor there is no advantage at all.

That's not the point. The point is that with microlenses in place there is little difference between a sensor with 18m physical pixels (60D) and one with 40m physical pixels (70D). The light is directed toward one pixel or another, so pixel size does not have a significant impact on total image noise.

Microlenses only serve to increase the incident light on the photodiode. That does not change the photodiodes capacity.

True. But that's about DR, not image noise. People...like the guy who started this thread...honestly think if Canon gave them an 8 MP sensor with modern circuitry that it would be some kind of super high ISO performer. It wouldn't do any better then a 70D on noise, though it should have better DR.

I'd also point out that even with microlenses today, we aren't even close to 100% capture.

Source? Also: if it's not 100%, it seems to at least be sufficient to make pixel density irrelevant (again, 70D vs. 60D, or any modern high density sensor with microlenses vs. a lower density sensor before microlenses.)

Third, the 70D is not a 40.4mp sensor. It is a 20.2mp sensor.

I would say at the hardware level you guys are talking about, it is a 40.4 MP sensor. The pixels are physically separated and basically half the normal size.

But who cares? Feel free to compare other sensors. Direct observations do not support the idea that a lower density sensor would automatically yield superior high ISO. And if this were the case, someone would be doing it.

Outside of that...it's all just theory, theory that otherwise indicates that the FF sensor will always have the advantage at the same or faster aperture than the APS-C sensor is used at

Unless you happen to want more DoF and not less  ;)

I've owned both the 650D and 1100D alongside my FF bodies, and IMO the lower mp camera gave better overall 'IQ'.

My friend has an 1100D and a 7D, and there's simply no situation in which the 1100D is better. Of course you have to judge the images at the same view or print size. If you simply zoom into both to 100% the 7D image is magnified more, and any flaws are amplified vs the lower resolution sensor.

I mention this because it is a constant mistake among the "lower pixel density is better" crowd. I can pull out some really old 10D photos and put them side by side with 7D photos, both at 100%, and the 10D sometimes looks better. Right up until I adjust the magnification on the 10D to the same view/print size as the 7D at 100% and the 10D image literally falls apart. If I go the other way and shrink the 7D image to the view/print size of a 10D image at 100%, the 7D image looks far better.

Equalize your viewing conditions. (And it goes without saying that if you're testing the two you also need to equalize everything else related to the test shot.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30