January 26, 2015, 01:43:33 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 4 ... 57
16
i own both cameras you mention. Go with the 7D Mk2. Up to ISO 800 they shoot the exact same quality pictures. From 800 to 3200, 5d Mk3 is 1 stop better. From 3200 to 12800, 7d mk2 is 1/3 of a stop better!

It appears you're serious about that.  Sorry to have to say it, but physics does not agree with your assessment.

I would have to agree with you Neuro. Unprocessed RAWs show the difference clearly and at high ISO the 5D3 is cleaner with more detail even though the 7D2 sensor is newer tech. It takes a large gap in tech for crop to produce cleaner high ISO, i.e. think 7D2 vs. original 5D.

But I would agree with one point Yiannis made: the 7D2 cleans up nicely. That does not make it better then a 5D3 at high ISO. But compared to earlier Canon 18 MP crop cameras like the 7D and 60D, a processed 7D2 high ISO shot looks much better then one would guess at first from unprocessed RAWs.

This struck me during the NX1 thread. SOOC RAW the NX1 is cleaner. After applying NR in ACR, the 7D2 looks better. The character of the noise has improved quite a bit.

17
Low light is mainly what you'd be giving up with the 7DII.  With my daughters' indoor sports/dance/etc., I'm often higher than ISO 6400 to get sufficient shutter speed, and that's with f/2.8 and sometimes f/2 lenses.

Agreed. But you have to think about the end goal. The 7D2 is fine to 12,800, even 16,000, for 8x10 prints as long as you don't blow the exposure.

Now if you want to print big from higher ISOs...hard to beat FF.

18
Well it only had 25 as the basic standard on luminance in LR, my import default, that is kinda what the tree looks like at 100%. But here it is with completely zeroed out noise reduction but with the same sharpening, if you can't get rid of this little noise you are in no position to be telling people stuff.

I like it better without the NR  :)

And I'm not sure anyone would notice the noise in print.

19
Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.

Exaggeration. Never the less, he could have gotten away with less NR as I did in mine: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+2.5ev is not a problem for Canon sensors.

20
No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.

Two people have presented files with just as much shadow push as he had and the results are fine. You are very clearly wrong.

21
For those that believe they can reproduce similar latitude to the Image discussed in this thread from single exposures from a Canon Sensor, I would be hugely interested to see some evidence, and I mean this in a positive sense, I would like to know just what I'm continuing to do wrong with my Canon gear that in a single exposure generally doesn't produce as much latitude as a single exposure on either the D800 (owned one of these as well) or the a7r.

I should have clicked the link and read the description sooner. You have your evidence in the screenshot I just posted above. He used +0.65exp and +100 shadows. In my shot I used +1exp and +80 shadows. If I put in his numbers I get pretty much the same result. Just using the exp slider, either combination equates to roughly +2.5ev.

He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.

This is very much like the recent D750 review where the reviewer acted as if his wedding shots with +1 and +2ev pushes could not have been done on a 5D3 because in a +5ev bedroom shot the 5D3 didn't do well.

This just goes to show how difficult it is to produce a real world sample that lies between Canon's limit and Sony's limit. Erez's example and the wedding shots in the D750 review are within Canon's range. Jrista's interior shot, while showing that the Sony has more range, was still actually outside of the Sony's range.

Look, Sony FF Exmor sensors at base ISO can go to +5ev with hardly any NR and produce decent results. Basically your shadow detail can be pitch black in the original image and still be recoverable. No one denies this is impressive or occasionally useful.

Canon sensors cannot do this. But if you can make out the shadow detail, as you can in both my original and in his, then you can recover and use it with a little NR. Basically you can recover detail that is -2.5 to -3ev below where it should be. Any more then that and the noise is too great and the detail is too little / too rough.

But that's quite a bit, especially if you ETTR and remember that you've got 0.5ev on the highlight side. You are not going to run into very many situations where the scene is just beyond a single Canon frame, but safely within a single Sony frame.

22
Would you rather push a few sliders or for every shot set up flashes / reflectors / tripods / GND filters (depending on the scene)?

False dilemma. It's not that often that the scene luminance range falls right between the limit of a Canon sensor and the limit of a Sony sensor.

Here's a screenshot I posted in another thread on this same topic. http://s28.postimg.org/6t5fhmhe5/7d_dr.jpg 2.5 stop recovery on the shadow side, 0.5 on the highlight side. I did bump NR but the final image was just fine at 16x24", and would have been fine up to +3ev on the shadow side. This is from the original 7D, arguably the nosiest of Canon's recent sensors.

That's not Sony Exmor, but it's not too bad either. To encounter a worse scene I would have had to shoot with the sun in the frame, at which point not even a Sony FF Exmor could hold the scene luminance range.

The "DRones" act as if you cannot push Canon sensors at all while Sony sensors can be pushed to HDR levels. Neither statement is true.

Quote
Why some people are against that is beyond me.

Who specifically is against Canon moving ADCs on chip to improve base ISO DR? Maybe a better question: why do you interpret debate as "being against" something when advocacy here will have zero impact on Canon's decisions regarding sensor design?

Quote
Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?

Wouldn't a 400% improvement = 48 stops total range (12 x 4)?

23
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 07, 2014, 12:36:03 PM »
Unsurprisingly, this Canon forum follows the Canon brand design - it's rather conservative and definitely isn't a stronghold of innovators or even early adopters. This is neither a "good" or "bad" thing, just an observation and it explains the reluctance about new camera designs. Heck, even Magic Lantern isn't widespread among Canon users even if its features beats most other camera systems out there.

Another place where debate goes wrong is when one side tries to explain the other side's disagreement as something other then honest and reasoned disagreement. You see this in politics all the time when side A declares side B is against XYZ because B is evil.

No one here has ever said they are against more low ISO DR. They just don't feel the difference is as large or meaningful as those who continually ask for it.

24
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 05:18:03 PM »
EVFs would have to have an advantage, which they don't except for video and manual focusing.

EVFs are awesome for exposure. You can shoot in M and reliably, consistently nail the exposures you want no matter how complex the scene or lighting. And you are a better judge of what you want then any AE algorithm.

25
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 05:14:41 PM »
1. an extra 2-3 stops over what Canon delivers now actually would make a big difference for a lot of the shots where it matters at all. It's exactly what you'd need to pull off many dappled forest scenes and such, even if it won't cover every single HDR shot.

It really isn't. That's why people struggle to produce meaningful real world examples whenever this debate comes up. It's easy to underexpose the corner of a bedroom by 5ev. Not so easy to produce a pair of publishable images where the Canon just had to have bracketing while the Sony did not.

Quote
2. those GNDs only work for a very, very few simple types of scenes. They are totally useless for most scenes including virtually any forest scene or any of the jrista interior type shots.

Why do you think this is a counter argument in the age of HDR?

Quote
3. multi-shot HDR can work in more scenarios, but it doesn't work out that nicely when there is motion be it from water, a breeze or subject's own motion.

It's rare that this is a problem. Extremely rare. Shooting through tall grass in the wind with the sun directly behind the grass rare. Except...Exmor cannot handle that in one frame either.

Quote
It also tends to require slow tripod work (you can sometimes do hand-held, but it tends to leave at least some weird artifacts here and there that can be a beast to clean up;

I don't know where you're getting this. Hand held is stupid easy with a fast DSLR, especially with IS.

Quote
LOL how typical. Every single thing the Canon is best at makes a real difference, but anything it's not absolutely doesn't matter expect just barely at all in the only the most extreme scenarios.

Nice strawman.

26
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 04:26:23 AM »
Roger, I'd like to add my thanks to those of others for your participation here!

—John

So would I. Roger, I've found your site to be a valuable resource for years. Great to see you here.

27
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 05, 2014, 05:23:41 PM »
And it's interesting that some improvements for astro photography are awesome (and they are) but then if say some landscape (not that only landscape shooters can benefit) shooter is looking for a 3 stops improvement, that's just minor nonsense and it's all on the photographer, people have made great pics forever so why should they even care, it just says something about the photographer doesn't it.

If a competitor had a >20 stop sensor that eliminated GND filters and HDR, that would be a "game changer" and would warrant the endless discussion and hand wringing we see here.

As is there are a couple stops of difference, which can be useful at times, but which simply cannot replace the techniques landscape photographers have used for years and decades. jrista's own interior shot demo that was here a while back showed two things. One, the Sony had more shadow latitude and the shadows were of higher quality. Two, even the Sony could not be stretched to retain the highlights and at the same time yield shadow quality that would be acceptable for publication. With a paying client you would be bracketing on either camera.

If you're into sports, the 7D II's AF and buffer make a real difference. If you're into astro, it's sensor characteristics apparently make a notable difference. If you're into landscapes...well...for all the words spilled on the Internet over DR and DxO I'm not sure it has ever actually resulted in a print that's observably better then another print. It's hard to even make the tripod/hand held argument when you can easily hand hold 2-3 frame brackets with no IS, and 5-7 with the latest IS lenses.

As I've said before, Sony FF Exmor will sometimes save you time and effort. And that's nothing to sneeze at. I would fault no one for buying a D810 or A7 for the sole purpose of saving time and effort. But you're not going to miss the shot on Canon. Canon's lenses, AF, UI, build quality, etc, etc...for many people these are more important then a few extra minutes spent on a blend or adjusting a GND filter, especially since you often have to do the same with the competition.

Quote
Just sick of all the nonsense where people just put down anyone who dares want to push things forward regarding something that someone else doesn't need/do or regarding something their pet brand that they worship doesn't do the best.

You are not pushing anything forward by posting here. A coordinated email campaign might get Canon's attention. A letter with a copy of your receipt for a D810 or A7R might get Canon's attention. Posts in these forums...or on any forums...are not going to get Canon's attention.

I am curious as to what Canon's management thinks of DxO and DR, if anything. And for the record I would love to see this improved. I just don't understand the obsession with it.

There's less difference today between the "weakest" sensor in an entry level, small format (m43, APS-C, FF) ILC and the best sensors in the most expensive small format ILCs then ever before. Yet some how we are spending more time talking about those differences, and people (not you specifically, nor jrista) on the Internet are becoming more arrogant about the performance of "their" sensor. It gets annoying, which is why you see the push back you are complaining about.

28
Dream away

I certainly wouldn't buy one on the hope or assumption that this will happen. But I wouldn't put it past Canon if they feel sufficient market pressure.

29
Lenses / Re: Dustin Abbott's "Review" of the Old Sigma 50/1.4
« on: December 03, 2014, 10:34:06 PM »
The old Sigma 50mm is roughly as sharp at f/2 as the ART is at f/1.4 (not quite, but very close). It's sharper then both the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Canon 50 f/1.2L when all are at f/1.4. You can see this in TDP's samples.

In real world use f/1.4 is perfectly usable. f/2 and f/2.8 come off very sharp.

I would say the old Sigma 50 has some of the best bokeh of any lens made. I would rank it slightly higher then the ART in this respect.

Color fringing outside the plane of focus is common to all fast primes, and I wouldn't say the old Sigma was worse in this respect then other lenses at the time of its introduction. Though it could really stand out at times (i.e. brightly lit black on white detail where some of the detail lies slightly outside the plane of focus), in normal use it was not an issue at all (i.e. portraits).

AF is finicky on the old Sigma, but that to seems to be common to all fast primes as well.

I've been able to shoot with an ART and I'm considering an upgrade. But I think very highly of the old Sigma, and consider it a steal at its current price.

Dustin either had a bad copy or was way too harsh in comparing it to the ART. It's a very good lens.

30
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 03, 2014, 05:37:07 AM »
There are plenty of people posting on the Samsung Talk section of the DPreview forums who actually own the NX1, and they are seeing nothing like what those two reviews report. The general consensus is that the guys who did those reviews either set up their cameras incorrectly, or that they had bugged lenses/cameras.

There are also posts from people on various forums with similar problems and no clear resolution.

It's entirely possible that there's a general configuration or QC issue. (I consider the former to be unlikely at this point.) But simply claiming that one or the other is the case does not make it so.

I suppose we will have to wait and see if Samsung issues firmware updates, if other reviewers run into these issues, etc.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 57