July 31, 2014, 12:10:48 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 4 ... 30
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.)

The T3/1100D was a 12 MP APS-C body with much newer sensor technology than other Canon bodies at similar resolution.  As you'd expect, the sensor had better noise performance that the 18 MP sensor variants.  But you're giving up a lot of features with a T3, relative to xxD or even xxxD bodies.

This is false. Measured in RAW with NR off, the gray and black noise levels from the T3 are the same as the 7D. The T3's chroma noise level is a bit better. You can see this at 100%, but when scaled to the same view size the 7D is as good or better.

With gapless microlenses there's little reason to expect larger pixels to yield less noise over the entire image. They should yield greater total DR, but few people are willing to give up the resolution for a bit more DR.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Laser Light Burns a DSLR Sensor in Canon 7D
« on: February 23, 2014, 06:46:17 PM »
If these nightclub lasers are damaging sensors, what the heck are they doing to eyeballs?  :o

I'm not familiar with what you shoot, but let's say you were surprised by a thrilling subject, and your subject was backlit or accidentally underexposed due to speed/position.  At this point, you would care a great deal about shadow recovery with minimal noise and banding.

I am absolutely sick of hearing about Sony sensors. They have a little more DR and a little more shadow recovery. They do not have so much more as to warrant the endless praise and discussion they receive, nor to justify the constant slamming of Canon's sensors.

The online "tests" which have caused all of this are quite obviously biased. Regardless of what is done with the Sony/Nikon files, the Canon files have all NR turned off in every "test" I've seen. I don't see noise or banding nearly as bad on an APS-C 7D that I see in the 5D3 in these online "tests". But then again, I'm not so stupid as to turn color NR off.

Even with Canon's APS-C sensors I routinely recover 2-3 stops of shadow detail with noise that is unobtrusive in a 16x20" print using ACR. If you can't do the same then you're doing it wrong.

Beyond that and both Canon and Sony sensors suffer from lack of tonality and fine detail. So I don't care much if you can push the Sony sensor +5 EV and see a little less color noise (given appropriate color NR settings) or a little less banding. I wouldn't use those shadows from either.

If Sony sensors were so dramatically better then the market share would not be so one sided between Canon and everyone else.

Lenses / Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:00:19 PM »
FYI - there's at least one app for the iPhone that can measure radioactivity: RadioactivityCounter. You have to cover your iPhone camera lens so that no light gets through, calibrate it by leaving it away from anything radioactivity for a few minutes, then place it very close to the source. It takes a while to get an accurate measurement but it does work. The app measures changes in noise output by the sensor.

Tested it with a few old lenses and found one radioactive one, the FL 50 f/1.8.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Best Nikon DF Review! By Fstoppers.
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:17:57 PM »
Fake aperture ring?  It think that says it all...

When is Canon going to do something innovative like retro fake aperture rings?  ;D

EOS-M / Re: Eos M vs Fujifilm X100
« on: December 15, 2013, 06:20:33 PM »
But I'll thrown in another thought for free - the X-100 is a camera that people want to use, whereas the Eos-M is a camera many people purchase simply because it is heavily discounted.

And then discover that they want to use it. There's a reason that the M, which has practically been forgotten by Canon USA, has such a strong following. I was one of the people who was hesitant about buying it even at the heavily discounted price, only to end up loving it and using it as much or more then my DSLRs.

And to the poster who claimed the Fuji 'blows away' the M on IQ: the X100s is a little bit better at high ISO. There's no real difference any where else. (What is it with photographers and hyperbole? "Blows away" would be a 5D3 at 3200 vs. a 20D at 3200. Tiny differences most will never notice even in huge prints != "blow away.")

As I see it there are three major differences between these cameras that would determine OP's choice.

* Viewfinder. M has none, X100 has one of the best. I find I do not miss a VF on the M, though to be fair I have DSLRs and use those with subject matter where I probably would miss a VF.

* Analog vs. touch screen control. This is a matter of personal preference, though admittedly most would prefer more physical controls. I like the M's touchscreen, but I do wish it had 2 dials for directly accessing shutter and aperture in manual mode.

* Lens interchangeability. Fuji X100s has one lens, the M has 3 dedicated and can take hundreds more via adapters. Notably, it is 100% AF/AE/aperture control compatible with Canon's EF/EF-S lenses via adapter.

Just depends on what you want out of the camera.

Granted, the printer interface for the Pro-10 is much nicer than the Epson, and switching black inks is automatic on the Canon and must be done manually on the 3800.

Are you sure? If I'm on, say, photo black and pick a matte paper the 3880 will change for me. I don't have to walk up to the printer and change it on the printer UI.

I did pick up a pack of Canon matte paper, and although I didn't like it at first, the look has grown on me.

Hot Press Bright won me over with the first print. Before that I was partial to glossy and semi gloss / luster papers. Hot Press Bright has the color, saturation, contrast, and deep blacks of glossy papers without the glossy sheen between your eyes and the detail. I love it.

For B&W I like Harman Matt Cotton Smooth a little better. For color, Hot Press Bright. But they are very, very close. If I'm out of one I won't hesitate to substitute the other. Most of what I print to hang on a wall now ends up on one of those two papers.

Thanks for the detailed reply and that's some interesting math!  I have owned several Epson printers over the years and have never been happy with the color, even after extensive calibration.  The Canon profiles and ability to print in 16-bit color aren't perfect, but MUCH closer than any of my calibrated Epson's ever were.  Being able to make a single print versus many to get the color right is going to save me a lot of money.

I never have to make prints to get the color right with the 3880. As long as I keep my monitor calibrated and choose the correct paper profile, what I see is what I get. I should note that I have setup the lights in my office for proofing prints, both in terms of brightness and color temperature.

I can say the same for Advanced B&W mode with one change: I choose the Dark setting instead of the default (which I believer is Darker). With that one adjustment my B&W prints match my screen and are the equal of anything I used to produce in a darkroom, if not better.

This wasn't the case with past Epson printers I've used, especially when it came to B&W. But the 3880 was calibrated out of the box. And I have yet to encounter a bad paper profile from Epson or any of the 3rd parties.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 30