July 25, 2014, 07:38:20 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 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 30
211
Lenses / Re: Protective filter [for Canon 15-85]
« on: November 03, 2012, 06:04:10 PM »
Hoya S-HMC or HD. They have the same optical quality, but the HD is more resistant to breaks/scratches/smudges. I've repeatedly tested S-HMC filters to look for image degradation and additional flare. Not once have I found it.

The Pro1 filters are good, but actually shy of the optical quality of the S-HMC and HD. They're probably close enough that you wouldn't notice 98% of the time.

212
Software & Accessories / Re: LR noise reduction in comparison to DPP
« on: October 31, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »
In my experience Adobe's tools yield higher resolution/finer detail. Canon's DPP can be adjusted for less noise.

I use ACR for pretty much anything through ISO 800, and DPP for 1600 and 3200.

213
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 08:38:52 AM »
If one converts a 8x10 film with a modern scanner ... say with 4000dpi ... a single 8x10 film will look like (4000 ppi)(8 in)(4000 ppi)(10 in) = 1280 Mpixels or 1.28Gb !!!!

Ahhh...no. Medium format digital backs were arguably a match for 4x5 at around 40 MP, and definitely by 80 MP.

Still...that's more than 22 MP. (Though part of the IQ comes from the larger format.)

There aren't very many artist / subject / print size combinations which call for 4x5, 8x10, or high resolution MF digital. The difference is obvious when you have a combination which calls for it. But it's rare.

214
Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:33:25 AM »
Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.


They must have had a bad copy. All other reviews report the Sigma being much sharper wide open, as it was designed to be.


Hmm... don't know about that.  LensRentals also noted that the Sigma had softer edges/corners.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

I have read that weeks ago.  That's totally different with my experience.  Actually you will see many people here have same feeling Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4.


DPReview found the Sigma was sharper wide open except in the extreme corners. And you can see the results at TDP. I don't discount the two reviews that show otherwise, but against the body of user reports I think they show production issues / variability.

Quote
My suggestion for people cannot make decision between the two lenses is that first get both of them at the same time.  And then keep the one you like and return another one.


Good advice. This might also be a lens that warrants cherry picking at a local store.

Regarding AF: I did some tripod mounted tests with the Sigma 50 1.4, Canon 50 1.4 and 1.8, and Canon 85 1.8. I repeatedly manually unfocused, then auto focused each. All of the above showed some variability shot to shot. The Canon 85 was the most consistent, followed by the Sigma, and trailed by the two Canon 50's. It should be noted that AF performance can vary unit to unit as well.

Why did I do this? At first I felt like I was missing more shots with the Sigma. Then it dawned on me that I was also using it wide open far more often then I ever did the Canons. I never really considered them usable wide open except in an emergency. I won't hesitate to use the Sigma at 1.4.

The Canon 50's are gone, though I kept the Canon 85 (great crop portrait and indoor sports lens).

215
Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 25, 2012, 08:57:26 PM »
Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.

They must have had a bad copy. All other reviews report the Sigma being much sharper wide open, as it was designed to be.

217
Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 25, 2012, 05:32:01 PM »
Sigma 50 1.4 any day of the week. Wide open it's comparable to the Canon 50 1.2L.

218
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 07:34:58 PM »
The old sensor tech in Canon  is not up to date 2012 and  in a comparison with Sony, not much to discuss

Oh boy! A 7D now has more DR then a 5D3. LOL! Take that FF fans!  ;D

And the D800 has 100% perfectly efficient ADCs. I didn't think that was physically possible.

Funny that Imaging Resource was able to get 12.5 stops from the 5D3  ::)

219
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:38:58 PM »
Here we go

I'm sorry...do you think that's a good example of DR? Try lifting those shadows in PS by 100%. See the noise? See the banding? Yuck!

You should have photographed that dead horse with an Exmor sensor, underexposed by 3 stops so we could all see how great Sony sensors are.

Pathetic man...really just pathetic  ;D

220
EOS Bodies / Re: do crop sensors really add reach?
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:34:00 PM »
Some are reporting equivalent IQ when the 5D2 image is cropped to match the 7D FOV.

At low to mid ISO...nonsense. They're probably sharpening the files the same or not sharpening at all, and basing their judgement on that mistake. And/or getting hung up on photon shot noise that disappears with a light NR pass.

That said...the difference is small to nonexistent unless you both crop further and print large. I've got 20" surfing prints made from 8-10 MP crops out of 7D files. Never would have made it that large with a 5D2, 5D3, or 1Dx (given the same lens). Anyone who questions that the 7D provides extra reach can go ahead and try to make 20" prints from 2-3 MP FF crops. The difference in IQ will be quite obvious.

But...I've only rarely had to both crop further and print large. If you're just trying to match APS-C's reach...not any further...then the differences just won't matter, especially when printing 8x10, 11x14. But even at 20" you can get away with it. Wildlife and sports do not stress resolution like a landscape. It might sound hard to believe, but 8 vs. 18 MP isn't that big of a deal in a 20" print of a surfer or deer, given proper post processing.

So yes, crop sensors really do add reach. But the differences are only apparent under extreme circumstances.

221
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:22:43 PM »
so you people do not think it is a wise way for Canon to either buy Sony sensors  fast as he...  or show that they can do anything similar as Sony, Panasonic, Omnivision, Aptina???????????????????

I think I'm going to buy a 5D3 just to annoy you  ;D

222
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:20:54 PM »
what a baloney, has a little more DR  seeking recognition and approval , I have shown with pictures and measurable data that Canon's sensors are  a lot  inferior compared to  Sony, 2 stops DR and banding and pattern noise, get a life

You've spent how much time beating the DR horse on this forum?  :o

And you're telling other people to get a life?  ::)

223
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:19:36 PM »
Where is Nikon's MP-E 65mm?  Where is Nikon's 600mm f/4 lens which is light enough that I can carry it for a 5 km hike then use it to take a handheld shot?

Oh snap!  ;D

But...but...but...DYNAMIC! RANGE!  ::)

In all seriousness, great shots Neuro. The macro shot is awesome.

224
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1Dx simple DR stress test
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:17:45 PM »
Tis is 1dx vs nikon d800 in the shadow same exposure time same f-stop, d800 to the right

No NR, which we can see from the original post makes a huge difference and minimizes (though not eliminates) the difference.

But why compare "best possible" when we're out to make a point!

225
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Full Frame Sharper Than Crop?
« on: October 19, 2012, 06:10:18 PM »
You have to remember that lens resolution is not a single number. It's an MTF curve describing detail contrast for a given resolution. The higher the resolution, the lower the detail contrast. For a given number of megapixels, crop sensors use smaller pixels. That means detail is recorded at a lower point on the lens MTF curve...lower contrast...vs. a FF sensor.

So yes, FF DSLRs provide sharper images out of camera.

However, at low to mid ISO this is a non issue. All DSLR images (or at least all DSLR images with AA filters) benefit from sharpening, and most benefit from local contrast enhancement. You're going to sharpen the files either way. With crop you just sharpen more in your RAW converter or PS. If you want out of camera JPEGs, you turn up the camera sharpening a little more.

At high ISO this works against crop bodies because the sharpening enhances the noise. And it's at high ISO that I think FF really distinguishes itself. But for all the talk about FF vs. crop, at low to mid ISO there really isn't much difference. Nothing that would stand out even in a 24" print. (Even 4/3rds is capable of matching crop/FF with the same MP count at low ISO.)

Diffraction softens the image. At f/22 (FF) and f/16 (crop) the impact is enough that you cannot fully compensate with sharpening in post. I do not use f/22 on FF, and do not use f/16 on crop, except in very special circumstances. With landscape shots I try to use hyperfocal focusing and the largest aperture possible while still retaining the DoF I want. LiveView is great for evaluating this.

Note that diffraction does not impact any format more than any other for a given FoV and DoF.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 30