October 30, 2014, 12:20:24 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 ... 54
211
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:30:44 PM »
I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

If one has more highlight range then a "best possible" test would exploit that. That said, I'm not sure to what degree this is the case if at all. Just pointing out that it is something to consider.

Quote
Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

212
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:22:23 PM »
I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.

I know one who gave his D3s away after the D4 came out.

Quote
As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.

Professional tests that control for all variables show otherwise.

213
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:16:35 PM »
The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.

The pattern you see in the box is inconsequential...when it survives at all...at anything less then pixel peeping. I also question whether it has anything at all to do with noise or is simply a result of 36 v 22 MP. When pixel peeping you will see tiny pattern and texture differences between the two. It's just never worth thinking about at <100%.

Quote
My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.

I don't think I've ever seen green blotches in skin, even when lifting shadow detail 2-3 stops. But if I did, I would give the scene more exposure the next time around.

When I review work online or in print, I see a difference between old DSLRs (i.e. 10D / 20D) and modern DSLRs. I see a difference between cheap glass and really good glass. I see a difference between P&S sensors and m43 or larger sensors. I see a difference between people who know how to use HDR and GND filters, and those that don't use them at all.

I don't see a difference between D800 and 5D3 shots, or Sonikon/Canon in general.

If the differences ever become so great that they're apparent in real life photographs made for art and not pixel peeping, then I'll be one of the people arguing that Canon should catch up or buy Sony sensors. Until then...

214
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:38:31 AM »
The thing that puzzles me, is that Canon's aren't the best at hi ISO either.

Right now, the A7s, the D4s, and even the 2009 D3s are pretty much the best hi ISO cameras out there.

The D3s is more then a stop behind the 5D3, and that's before scaling the 5D3 image down to match. 1DX and D4s are a wash at high ISO. The A7s is a solid stop ahead of other current FF sensors, Canon or Nikon.

Quote
I know quoting DXO is a crucifiable offence round here, but their first Canon in the hi ISO chart is the 1DX at number 10.

Once again, DxO is at odds with observable reality. Not just in terms of where the 1DX ranks, but on the Nikon rankings as well. The D4s is without question ahead of the D3s.

Sad that they get all these great cameras to test and never actually photograph the real world. If they did they might fix their tests  ;D

215
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:26:44 AM »
Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

Thank you for providing these. They won't settle any arguments about HDR landscapes, but it's something.

Clearly the D800 has less shadow and red channel noise. But once again I'm stuck wondering why there's so much angst over this. Play with the NR sliders in ACR and/or add some NR in post and they're not that different. Though I will say in this case that the shadow gradation is better on Nikon and would probably appear so in print side by side after NR.

I will also make the point that the dynamic range is essentially the same between the two (as I would expect), though the D800 has more shadow latitude thanks to the lack of noise and smoother gradation (i.e. no banding).

Do I wish Canon would improve to this level? Of course. Do I think it's worth switching brands? No, though I wouldn't give anyone grief on FB for doing so.

216
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:24:08 AM »
I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.

Allow me to rephrase...I have never seen a half dozen threads about Canon T/S lenses on a Nikon site at one time.

217
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:41:18 AM »
There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people  ;D

218
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:39:47 AM »
Indeed.  The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle.  The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it.

It's still competitive. At the short end Nikon's 80-400 AF-S is sharper, but at the long end the Canon is sharper. The worst thing about the Canon is the push/pull zoom.

In a sense Nikon "just caught up" to the Canon version in 2013. Are Nikon lenses as a whole two generations behind Canon?  ;)

219
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:32:57 AM »
To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate. Since we do not have a 5D3 shot of the room nor a D800 shot of the stream we have no idea what the difference would actually be.

You, me, neuro, jrista, Keith...everyone here...none of us can accurately evaluate the luminance range of a scene by sight alone, nor the dynamic range of a RAW file, and compute in our brains how it might have looked on another camera. Not even close.

Absent that you get confirmation bias. Every Canon shot with a white sky or black shadow is due to 'Canon's crummy sensor.' Every Nikon shot with a good range from shadow to highlight is 'thanks to those amazing Exmor sensors.' Even if you could have swapped cameras and gotten the same results they are interpreted that way. Heck, in another thread we had jrista cruising 500px thinking obvious HDR images were single frame Exmor shots. Outside of this debate and the psychological biases it has introduced...one's frame of mind if you will...he would have never assumed some of those shots were anything but multiple frame HDRs.

We have plenty of words but no real examples save Fred Miranda's, and the difference there is simply not worth all these words.

I would love to put this to rest once and for all, but I either have to borrow a friend's D800 (which he's always using professionally) or buy a Sony A7 (which I'm planning but haven't done yet). But a half dozen threads on the same topic is pointless absent a series of "all other things equal" test shots. Real world test shots. Not black paper in a coal mine "I pushed this >5 stops and turned off all NR on the Canon and look at how much better Nikon is at 300%" nonsense.

Despite my clashes with jrista I would trust him to do this. His sunflower scene would have been a great test if he had only had a D800 to test. I suspect the noise would have been much better on the darkest frame, but the shadows would have been mud that deep. I could be wrong.

Quote
if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene. (Side note: based on what experience I do have processing/printing D800 RAW files I would guess there would be some benefit. I'm not convinced it would be visual, but simply less work in post. I can imagine in some cases that it would be visual, but I don't think it would ever be massive, i.e. you are still going to need and use GND filters and HDR.)

220
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:12:46 AM »
blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!

Do you have a controlled, side by side test that illustrates this inferiority in a real world scene viewed at normal sizes (i.e. 24" wide)?

Let us know when you're ready to post it.

221
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:09:08 AM »
How would you feel if Canon announced three new FF cams at Photokina, and announced that they were stopping CMOS development and using those funds for other camera technologies?

You're assuming this would save them money. In fact it would probably cost them. Sony wants a profit on the sensors they sell.

222
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:12:36 AM »
are you royal or why do you use the word "we"?

The royal we...man.

Quote
"fact" is also.. that if canon "had" the better sensors the fanboys here would be all over it.

They might bring it up. But they wouldn't be on Nikon Rumors starting post after post about it.

Quote
it's somewhere between disingenuous and downright dishonest to suggest that all people who want better DR saying that it´s all that matters.

No, but they've built it up in their minds into something it is not and talk about little else. That's why I tell people to actually do the tests, rent the equipment, try it out. The first time you push shadows from an Exmor RAW it is impressive. Then you get some some images under your belt and you realize that it's better and occasionally useful, but in less extreme cases it's not as different in print as you imagined. And in more extreme cases you're not fighting noise, but mud, and you need to HDR to get the detail you really want any way.

DxO and the various reviewers who think turning all NR off...sometimes only on the Canon file!...is clever are doing a real disservice to the photographic community at large.

223
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 11:03:39 AM »
i like the idea but i would like to see a resize to A4 at 360PPI (4209x2976 pixels).

Just go for 16x20. You would be lucky to see a difference in 1% of cases. Seriously. The paper you choose to print on will have more of an impact.

224
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:27:57 AM »
...
As for DR/exposure latitude, for all the debate on this forum there has been exactly ONE test sample shot under identical conditions, the one from Fred Miranda.

Once a test is done, it doesn't need to be repeated.

Apparently it does because the test does not support the whining about DR that appears on this forum. Not even close.

Quote
Everyone with a 5D2 or 5D3 knows how bad the noise and shadows are.

So bad you might notice in a 24" print. If the Nikon print is sitting next to it. And you have a magnifying glass  ;D

225
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 30, 2014, 12:05:42 AM »
Why?

I have owned both and I very strongly disagree.

Make a case, not bland sweeping statements.

I realize this was directed at jrista and neuro, but...5D3 v D800 I would say the 5D3 is the better overall camera by a small margin. 5D3 v D810 is a wash.

If you have Canon lenses obviously the 5D3 is the superior camera. If you have Nikon lenses the 810 is superior. There is nothing in either that would make me jump brands.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 54