November 23, 2014, 02:30:27 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 ... 55
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Whats wrong with the 70 D ?
« on: October 28, 2014, 06:28:50 AM »
There's nothing wrong with the 70D.

Those recommending're not going to notice a difference in print except at high ISO. Even there you have to be printing large. Nothing against FF. It is better for really low light, it can achieve more shallow DoF, and some lenses just seem to 'fit' FF better (i.e. you want a 17mm TS lens to be 17mm). But final IQ in the vast majority of shooting situations? No difference.

Older FF like the 5D? The 70D sensor is superior in every way. (That said, the 5D was a great camera and at the right price is certainly still an option.)

Technology has not only improved IQ across all formats, it has compressed the differences. There has never been less IQ difference between different "tiers" of photographic equipment. Reviewers and brand fans debating in forums like to kid themselves into thinking otherwise. But spend some time processing and printing various RAW files and test scenes available online. Print sections on 8x10 paper scaled as if they were cut out of 24" and 36" prints if you do not have a large printer. How much difference do you really see when all files are properly processed and optimized?

I prep'd and printed four files recently with a friend, 36" scale. Forget the 5D3...we had trouble telling the A7R from the 70D! Where we could detect a difference the difference was tiny, much smaller then one's technique in the field and in Photoshop.

But ask online and someone will tell you how much better this or that is. Unless they're pitching a MFDB or LF's usually not.

You want a 70D? Buy and enjoy.

In the world of Canadian music, good noise is "The Stampeders", nasty noise is Justin Beiber... unpredictable and we just can't seem to be able to get rid of it.....

You seemed to do a pretty good job of getting rid of him by sending him to live in America  :o

We owe you for that one btw, and not in a good way  ;)

Within the given context, which in this case, in this thread, is DPR's sample images, the Canon conversions, whatever was used to make them, end up looking worse.

In your humble opinion.

The rest of us are looking at the images, reading your posts, and are left to assume that either A) there's something screwy with your viewing conditions, or B) bias is overriding your judgement.

But - really? - Complaining about the "quality" of the Chroma noise? The single easiest thing to fix (by a country mile), of all the things that might impact on image quality?

Are you really that desperate for something to bash the 7D Mk II about?

This. Chroma noise cleans up nicely with hardly any impact on detail or sharpness.

According to these samples, I must say that it seems to me the best APS-C image currently. :o :)

OMG!! Canon actually did that. ::)  Must be some very angry haters out there now.

No, it's not the best.  Apparently the noise that's there is 'blotchy' and 'nasty'...

The haters can rest comfortably knowing that everyone else still makes better sensors than Canon because of that particular characteristic.  As expected, biases are easier to believe than evidence.

I wonder what the complaint would have been if Canon had released a 7D2 with a revolutionary 50 MP sensor that had multiple layers for extended DR...say 20 bits worth..and some how cleaner high ISO then the Sony A7S.

"Those Canon pixels are not perfectly square. Other cameras have square pixels but if you zoom in 10,000% you can see small distortion in the shape of Canon pixels."  ;D

On the digital photography review site targeting the jack of hearts, and his "hair" and the text below him, the sony is head and shoulders better than any of the other sensors in raw at least.

You can see the hair and read the text in all samples. The difference in sharpness you observe is probably equal to moving the detail, sharpening, and/or clarity sliders a bit.

In any case, this would be invisible outside of pixel peeping. "Head and shoulders better", in my book, means you can clearly and reliably see the difference at normal, or least large, print sizes.

I wouldn't say that at all. At "Full Size", that may be true, however once you switch to "Print", FF pulls ahead again, with considerably lower noise in all cases.

I would also strongly dispute the notion that the 7D II does better than the D7100. Again, at "Full Size", the gap is small, however at "Print" size, the D7100 exhibits far less color noise.

I suspect the 7D and 5D II are worse, but Canon crop is still worse than everyone else when it comes to color noise

I'm not seeing any difference on the Print setting, nor is there any reason to think that scaling down would produce drastically different results from pixel peeping here. I suspect a quirk involving your browser, monitor, or the combination.

The D7100 and a6000 have slightly more color blotching then the 7D mark II, not less. The 5D3 is better of course, but put it a stop higher and it's about the same.

In RAW I would agree that it looks about a stop better then the 70D at the higher ISOs.

I don't think it's a stop better then the D7100. I would actually say the D7100 is slightly better in the darkest tones (i.e. black), but the 7D mark II seems a bit better in lighter tones. So it's hard to put a number on it.

Agreed on the A6000 (7D2 is 2/3 stop better) and, a bit surprisingly, on the FF. I would have expected the FF bodies to do better, but I would agree with Mt Spokane here.

It's kind of curious to me that in RAW there only seems to be a stop or so between crop/FF but in JPEG, at high ISO, the gap looks larger because the crop images are so soft. The gap in JPEG looks like 2 stops just because of the detail loss, but in RAW it looks like a stop or so. I always shoot RAW any way, but I'm curious as to why this would be the case.

The Internet meme is that Canon did little or nothing because the sensor is still 20 MP, but it's obvious they made some improvements. In other threads I've said that when you go to print...even at 36"...there is really very little difference in resolved detail between FF and crop. We're simply hitting diminishing returns for these sensor sizes. I feel the same way scrolling around this test scene. It doesn't seem like the 7D2 is at any great disadvantage for "only" having 20 MP, and it's certainly at the top in high ISO.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7d mark II as reviewed by Artie Morris
« on: October 22, 2014, 01:43:08 AM »
I only "discovered" Artie this evening.

He touts that DPP is better than ACR for processing RAW files

Anyone agree/disagree?

I've never heard of anyone, even a Canon Explorer of Light, highlight DPP

In my experience so far...

* ACR has a clear edge in resolution and rendering fine detail.

* DPP results in less noise at high ISO.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 19, 2014, 04:14:35 AM »
In fairness, it's a wash after post processing. But the differences are simply not that large to begin with.

If you need to post process the crop image to match the FF, then it's not a "wash". It's the crop getting its ass handed to it.

Because 50% or less USM is such a HUGE difference OMG! ::)

To the 5D-III punters... I can understand how the 5D-III can replace the 6D, but how exactly does the 5D-III replace a 7D-II?

Apart from fps what doesn't the 5D MkIII do that the 7D MkII can?

iTR tracking, AF points over a wider area of the VF, and light flicker compensation. That and fps would certainly make the 7D2 the better choice for some sports situations, but the 5D3 is no slouch in those situations.

The 7D2 will also remote control Canon flashes. Not a big deal, there are plenty of equipment options to add this to the 5D3.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 06:29:57 PM »
I'm not seeing any real difference in any of the pairs. Doesn't that kind of support the other side  ???

Again I'll say if you're cropping in so much that you're left with like 3 MP from the FF file...and you have to make a larger print...crop wins. You simply run out of pixels otherwise. But that's rare.

The flip side is that the same thing happens when you honestly compare FF vs. crop, same FoV and print size and all of their pixels, at low to mid ISO. A landscape photo with an 11mm on crop and a 17mm on FF. OOC you can see a difference, but after post processing...good luck telling them apart, even at 36". In fairness, in difficult situations FF files can take harder processing, but you can push a crop 14-bit RAW pretty hard as well.

Even high ISO at smaller print sizes is becoming more difficult to discern, though ISOs like 6400 and 12800 still clearly show off FF's light gathering advantage. But if Scott Kelby's samples are any indication...a crop 7D mark II will be usable at 16,000 for an 8x10. FF would look better even at 8x10 at that ISO, but how much better? It's ridiculous how good we have it.

We are far too concerned with minutia at a time when equipment a wide margin...the best it has ever been.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 17, 2014, 12:36:17 AM »
Perhaps I should read all of the prior six pages (and even some 7Dii reviews), but I suspect we're only having this discussion because Canon crop sensors are lagging a bit.


No, they're not. Not in actual resolved detail as opposed to MP count. And not in high ISO, at least not for crop. Indeed it looks like the 7D2 has the best high ISO to date. (Still waiting on Samsung samples to appear.)

It also looks like the 7D2 may have dealt with banding issues. (Can't know for sure until it ships and/or RAWs are made available which allow one to explicitly test this.) Though it also looks like Sony still holds the crown for recovered shadow detail at base ISO.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 16, 2014, 06:09:06 PM »
Naive and simplistic. What does crop 'win'?

I've made 16x20" prints of surfers where I ended up with 8-9 MP after cropping further into 7D files. FF couldn't have done that.

Agreed if you don't have to crop any further then the initial crop to match 1.6x and/or you don't print large it really doesn't matter.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:00:33 PM »
There's a lot to like about the D750. For me, the kickers are the price, WIFI, and tilt screen. Some people consider WIFI and a tilt screen to be "consumer grade" items, but there are many times I'm on assignment that both would come in handy. The extra DR is merely an added bonus.

Absolutely, and I certainly don't want to come off as biased against it. IMHO the D750 means Canon should drop the price on the 5D3 until the 5D4 is available.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 55