August 21, 2014, 12:55:17 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 ... 34
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:08:50 PM »
Well now that we've concluded the discussion of a touchscreen – which might be defined as "merely trivial," it appears we can get back to the discussion of dynamic range, which would fall into the category of "manifestly trivial."

But Canon hasn't updated their sensors since 1969 and Sonikon sensors get 9,001 more stops of dynamic range and some say if the 7D mkII sensor isn't revolutionary Canon will die!

Or so I read in a forum on the Internet last Thursday  ;)

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:06:38 PM »
In case someone doesn't get it:

You won't see more steps in a shot of a transmission step wedge by downscaling, the downscaled image will look exactly the same unless you downscale so much that you see pixelization. If  you compare a shot taken with a 8mpix sensor against shot taken with a 36mpix sensor where each pixel has exactly the same DR in both sensors however...

You will see the exact same DR in both shots. No different then if you shot 8x10 Velvia 50 and 35mm Velvia 50 and compared them in terms of DR.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 04:03:34 PM »
Not between us I guess since it's 1 vote against 1 vote, but at least DxO and 90% of the info out there agrees with me (it's just you and a handful of others on here and DPR who don't).

Have you even looked at other test sites? DxO is always the odd ball out when it comes to DR tests. Their results are different from Imatest as well as straight up transmission step wedge tests every single time. The latter two are usually in close agreement.

DxO simply has no idea what photographic dynamic range is.

Which would explain why their low ISO quality hasn't improved since 2007. (or more likely the big guys simply didn't want to spend $$$ to make new fabs, which are very expensive it is true)

Both Canon's FF and APS-C sensors have better DR today then they did in 2007. Even their 18 MP sensor has improved with each "minor" change/iteration. I suspected this the first day I processed RAWs from my M. Looked it up and sure enough, about 1.5 stops more DR then the original 18 MP sensor in my 7D.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 03:17:46 AM »
But it DOES have bearing on reality. And even if you don't believe and numbers of definitions or whatnot, I mean just look at the images, it tells the tale that they do have a bearing on reality.

I have looked at the images. Then I've openly laughed at DxO's estimates of DR.

One of my pet peeves is when people endlessly theorize where they should be simply observing. Shoot a transmission step wedge in RAW and develop with ACR. Canon sensors will not land in the 10.x stop range, but the 12.x stop range. Sony Exmor will land in the 13.x stop range, not the 14.x range. It doesn't matter what scale you view the step wedge at.

Now if you insist on viewing everything at 100%...

This has nothing to do with photographic dynamic range.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 02:23:07 AM »
The way DR is measured here you simple compare max signal to the noise floor and the max here is just the perfect white, channel 100% blown, max well value.

And this is not photographic dynamic range.

OTOH, though, the one and only definition of DR in signal processing... not the same as the one and only definition of DR in photography.  ;)

Appreciate your post, you get why there's confusion, just trying to illustrate for those who insist DxO DR measurements have any bearing on reality.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 01:05:43 AM »
You'd make a great politician

Seriously, there's no call for such grevious insults!   :o

Wow...a politician...that's worse then insulting someone's mother!  :o

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 01:03:25 AM »
Your problem is trying to compare high frequency noise to noise of lower frequency as if they were the same thing.

I'm not comparing noise at all. Clipped shadows and highlights do not magically reveal detail because the noise level went down. There is no detail to reveal at that point.

DxO's definition of dynamic range is the definition some guy looking at an oscilloscope might come up with if he had never touched a camera. It is not photographic dynamic range.

Well his files show

Where can they be downloaded?

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:37:29 AM »
So, in other, downscaling the image would not make more of the steps on the wedge fall within the DR when the picture was taken.  Thanks for your definitive answer.  ::)

Now I'm not so sure Neuroanatomist. In scaling his answer down to one word the answer became bold. An increase in DR?  ;D

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:33:02 AM »
If you shrink it down to 35mm film size you are also shrinking everything about it down and all the grain and noise and details become much smaller and if you then find the distance that is the smallest that the 35mm film was resolving and then avg all the little stuff on the shrunken 8x10" frame over that smallest scale the 35mm film was resolving then you get a cleaner signal at that scale.

You do not get more detail, therefore you do not get more photographic dynamic range. Blocked up shadows and highlights will still be blocked up. On a step wedge the same number of steps will be gray, black, and white.

and see Fred Miranda site where a long time Canon fan and site owner compared 5D3 and D800 and found the same large difference and went out and bought an A7D supplement his 5D3

I would rather see his RAW files. My bet is that the difference is not as dramatic as whatever processing led him to believe it was.

That's not saying I fault anyone for wanting an Exmor sensor. Heaven knows I've spent extra $$$ for small gains. And processing can be easier with Exmor. But Canon is not that far behind, and this DxO nonsense is out of hand.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:22:01 AM »
And to the other guy they normalize to 8MP so if a camera has a lot more than 8MP it can end up with more than the number of bits the file has per pixel.

That is not photographic dynamic range.

I get what they're doing. Shrink the image. Noise and therefore black point are lower. "Oh my we have more dynamic range!"

No. Photographic dynamic range is the range over which you have captured detail. Shrinking an image does not create detail, it throws it away!

Simple thought experiment. Shoot 8x10 Velvia 50, a 6 stop (if that) film. Scan. Shrink down to the scanner dimensions for a 35mm piece of film. Did you magically turn Velvia into a 10 stop film? If you shot a step wedge, did more steps become a shade of gray rather then pure black or white?

Obviously not.

Makes me wonder if the guys responsible for this part of their test suite even own cameras.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:13:18 AM »
How often do I need to tell people that they are in the minority?  ::)

I'm not sure, but I believe it involves an exponent.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 12:09:41 AM »
Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops.

Strange that those gray blocks outside of 10 stops are visible in a step wedge test. I wonder how that happens ::)

Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW,

They may be literal measurements, but they are not of photographic dynamic range. DxO's model of how sensel measurements translate into DR is quite obviously flawed. And it is easy to demonstrate that their results are false with a Stouffer step wedge.

This same flaw in their model and thinking is no doubt the source of their demonstrably false belief that shrinking an image yields more DR.

Canon IS behind by about two stops.

They are behind 1 stop or less depending on the models being compared. (The 7D is ancient so that's not a fair comparison. Canon's current 18 MP chips are behind a stop.)

A while back someone on DPReview posted samples from a Nikon and a Canon to demonstrate the amazing DR of Sony Exmor. Canon fans challenged the comparison so he provided RAWs. Guess what? He did the same thing some of the online tests are doing: he turned off NR completely for the Canon but not for the Nikon!

Once the Canon file was intelligently processed the difference was minor. The Nikon file did have a bit more detail and less noise in the shadows. Turning NR off didn't even affect that very much (kudos Sony). But the Canon file had plenty of detail to work with, and the noise was not over bearing with intelligent application of NR. In a large print it would have been hard to tell them apart. Even the guy who opened the thread had to back peddle.

These were FF models, 5D3 and D800 if I remember correctly.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:52:15 PM »
I can't imagine Canon doesn't read to some degree forums like this  one especially.


UPDATE: I just came off the phone with Canon HQ in Tokyo, and they actually Do have A PERMANENT, FULLY STAFFED "SILLY INPUT" DEPARTMENT! I stand corrected...  ;D

A department flooded by DxO articles no doubt.

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 11:17:00 PM »
I'm actually referring to real photographers I know out in the real world.

Anecdotal evidence...meh. Any hard sales stats?

The story is not the same on DPR forums, Fred Miranda, forums. There is a strong and growing presence of members on those forums who are, just like myself, wondering when Canon is going to do something about overall still photography image IQ.

Obsessive behavior fueled by Internet trolling and memes. It's not representative of more then a small sliver of the buying public who mostly think we're obsessive compulsive nerds to argue this stuff. (They're right.) It drove me nuts early on when the meme was Nikon sensors sucked and Canon were best (think 6-8 MP days when only Canon had FF), and it drives me nuts today with all the Exmor 5+ stop pushed shadow tests and 36 MP envy.

I would actually rank the 1DX, 5D3, and 6D a tiny bit better in high ISO then their Sony/Nikon counterparts. DR (actual, not DxO fantasy) is within a stop of Exmor across the board. Yeah, you can push Exmor shadows by an insane amount and not see any real noise, but your tonality is !@%# by that point and you should have bracketed / blended any way.

Scale and properly (lightly) sharpen a 22/24 MP FF image to 36 MP and you have a hard time finding any where that the 36 MP image is better. On a print? Do you have a loupe and an hour? (I say that having poured over 5D3, A7, and A7R RAWs recently trying to decide which A7 I want. It's no longer the A7R.)

Where Sony really has Canon beat right now is JPEG quality. The A7 JPEGs in the Imaging Resource Comparometer are stupid detailed and sharp. Makes the 5D3 look bad until you load up the RAWs in ACR. Already knew that but someone who has never shot/processed a 5D3 might not. Same thing with the 7D, fine detail is substantially better in ACR.

So given that Canon is right there on IQ, what are they supposed to do? I guess it would be nice if they eliminated the shadow noise completely and released a high rez FF. At least then the trolling would stop.

However, the 7D II is years past it's due date.

How so? It looks to me like Nikon abandoned the segment and nothing else matches it overall even today.

We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 07:56:58 PM »
That's not my line of thought. My line of thought is, adding a touch screen and all the firmware requires resources at Canon to perform. They have to implement it, test it, work the bugs out of it, etc. All that...when there are other things Canon could be investing those resources into.

Again, they've already developed this tech. Adding it to the 7D2 would have required minimal effort during development. (Assuming this particular rumor is even true and it's not in fact there.) Doing so would involve separate engineers from, say, sensor development.

There probably were test units in the wild with touch screens which were the source of the initial rumors. They probably did in fact develop it. If it didn't make it to production, it likely was due to reliability. Admittedly I'll take build over touch screen at this time. But by the mark III reliability issues should be solved so that all their cameras can have a touch UI *** which compliments the physical UI ***.

it is the farthest thing from the most "essential" feature that the 7D II could possibly get.

It is now annoying to use a camera that does not have touch. There are two cameras on my radar: a Sony A7 and the next Canon 7D. Neither has touch. This will not stop me personally from buying either, but it is annoying. will stop some people because touch UI is that important to the way they work. I can totally see why a cinematographer would demand a touch screen UI.

Personally, the deal breaker for me, is whether Canon does something fundamentally new with their sensor design or not.

Whatever they've done, there are too many rumors to assume it's a reheated version of the 70D sensor. I doubt multilayer is true, but I hope I'm wrong. Either they're using two layers for DR or three for RGB, and there's potential for great IQ gains either way.

same old freakin gimped out 19pt AF system that can't reliably maintain a SOLID lock on a target.

I swear the 7D is the most divisive camera body. Either you think the IQ is great or you hate it. Either you have no problems with AF servo or it never works. Did Canon have a QC issue I'm not aware of???

I can't remember the last time my 7D lost AF lock on a target with either of my "sports" lenses, 70-200 f/4L and 300 f/4L IS, or with the 85 f/1.8 at distance.

If I have any complaints with my 7D's AF it's AF accuracy, particularly in very low light, with fast (f/2 or faster) primes shot wide open at closer (portrait) distances. There's too much play in these situations. Spot AF helps a bit.

Canon has a problem. I know you do not believe that, but they do. It's a perceptual problem, and it could seriously affect their revenues and ability to fund the necessary R&D in the years to come.

They are #1 in DSLR sales. If they have a problem it certainly has not affected their revenues or R&D to date.

Such things have happened before, and often companies, even if they were on the top of the world, NEVER recover (Kodak?)

Kodak was hit by a fundamental shift in technology equivalent to the invention of PCs and their impact on the typewriter industry. False analogy is false.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 34