February 27, 2015, 02:53:47 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 4 ... 58
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:14:27 AM »
The 7DII isn't intended for high ISO use. That's the 6D and 5DIII.

A crop sensor that's usable at ISO 16,000 is "not intended for high ISO use?"  ::)

Oh, and the 7DII isn't intended for low ISO, low noise landscape use either, that's intended for the 6D and 5D III.

It's absolutely fine for landscape use. 99% of the time you couldn't tell it apart from a D810 in a 24" print given good glass on both and low/mid ISOs.

Unless, of course, you habitually underexpose by 5ev.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:07:56 AM »
I was surprised how much the DR difference to the Nikon D7000 is, but then I remembered how well my old 7D can deal with harsh lighting conditions with the right PP technique. :D

DPReview's processing of the Canon file was awful. There are multiple samples in a thread on their forums that are much better and therefore closer to the D7000. Still not as good, but much closer.

Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: December 14, 2014, 01:07:01 AM »
And even those may soon discover, that mirrorless cameras like Samsung NX1 are better suited for reach-limited, action-oriented captures.  :)

The Samsung cannot AF. In TheCameraStoreTV's review it blew half the frames in a dead simple tracking test (brisk walk/slow jog speed). In the Golden City Films review the two guys just tore the Samsung apart over AF. They said it was terrible at tracking at a dog park and even in the studio trying to get the 85mm to focus on the model's eye. The 7D II? Reliable as expected.

Absent a major firmware update, I don't think the NX1 is going to make any in roads into the Canon/Nikon sports and wildlife markets.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6D vs 7D mark II
« on: December 09, 2014, 01:31:44 AM »
Not really.  None of the side-by-side comparisons I've seen between 7D and 7Dii are showing much improvement at all, and nothing has shouted out "much better", or even "after 5 years...". 

At low ISO the 7D2 is less 'gritty'. At high ISO I would say it's "much better", though obviously not as good as the 6D.

On the other hand, the difference between 7D + 10-22mm and 6D + 16-35mm is significant (I own both bodies and lenses).  I loved the combo with 7D, had lots of fun with it, but there is a big step up with the 6D.

That's because of the lens in question. A Tokina 11-16 or Sigma 8-16 would even that up.

Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.

And that makes three pieces of hard evidence.

Again: Sony FF Exmor can stretch further. The shadow detail can be deeper...pitch black before processing...and still be recovered. But if you ETTR with Canon and can just start to see the detail to be recovered in the unprocessed version, you will typically be OK. There's a lot of room there, just not the same amount that's on Exmor FF.

you must be joking ...  +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors.

There are two shots in this thread proving you wrong. I realize some of the sliders are adaptive, but I reset Shadows to 0 and used just the Exposure slider to verify that my original settings were indeed equal to +2.5ev.

What do you imagine you can gain by stomping your feet and insisting X is false when faced with hard, reproducible evidence that X is true?

Also .. the image you have linked to is not even remotely comparable, and neither is the other one with the tree trunk. No sky at all in it, not to mention sun directly in the frame ... as in the linked picture in the starting post.

My image is directly comparable. In fact, looking at the unprocessed versions my shadow detail appears to be a little deeper then his. That he has the sun in the frame is immaterial given that he did not capture/preserve highlight detail. What patches of sky are visible in his shot are completely blown out.

I *strongly believe*

What you believe is irrelevant in the face of hard evidence no matter how strongly you feel about it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)?

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.

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.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 58