September 01, 2014, 08:38:15 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 ... 40
211
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
« on: September 09, 2013, 08:17:48 PM »
As usual, I'm going to say that the differences are not as large as they're made out to be.

Maybe I have an unusually sharp copy (so does TDP apparently?), but it's good wide open and very good stopped down. I have sharper lenses, but the 17-40L is usually shot stopped down, and after post processing the differences are trivial.

Likewise, if you applied lens profiles and post work to the test shots at TDP, how much difference would there be really vs. the 16-35II? A little wide open, and none stopped down.

Astrophotography seems to stress its weaknesses and for that I would recommend a fast prime. But your typical FF landscape photographer can make plenty of sharp, detailed, 24" and 30" prints with this lens.

212
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 09, 2013, 06:55:50 AM »
Yes, I understand that a lot of it is subjective.

I wasn't speaking about subjectivity at all. My two points were that A) the 5D3 sensor objectively measures better across the board, but that B) literally dozens of variables that have nothing to do with the sensor could cause a 1D4 RAW file to look better then a 5D3 RAW file.

People fail to realize how many links in the imaging chain are an order of magnitude more important then the sensor differences they endlessly ponder and debate, even FF vs. crop vs. 4/3.

Quote
I use Canon DPP to view, straight out of the camera. It is set to "fit to window", so the 1D IV images are the ones being magnified.

To give you an idea of the variables and tolerances: what you think gives the 5D3 an advantage might in fact give the 1D4 an advantage. Even Photoshop uses fast scaling algorithms for screen display that can look worse at certain magnifications. An even better example: Apple's Preview is notorious for destroying images at certain sizes. You can open an image in Preview, it looks horrible, then click full screen and it can grow by maybe 15% but all of a sudden look like gold. Or vice versa. I don't spend that much time in DPP, but it wouldn't surprise me to observe the the same.

And opening both in DPP with "neutral" settings does not eliminate settings or profiles as a variable. DPP is doing different things for different cameras even if all the human visible settings seem the same.

Quote
I can compare it to listening to different audio amplifiers. The specs may be the same, but they sound different.

Bad analogy. There's a lot of nonsense that gets passed around the audiophile crowd, and I rarely ever trust a claim unless it's repeatable under blind testing conditions.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you're claiming a camera which objectively tests worse (though still very, very good...none of these cameras are ever "bad") looks better then one which objectively tests better. If you want to know if something is wrong in your 5D3 imaging chain, post RAW files (identical subject / lighting / lens / exposure).

213
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D Mk 3 and 1D Mk IV raw images
« on: September 07, 2013, 06:54:43 PM »
I am noticing a difference between the raw images from those two cameras using the same lens.

The 1D IV images seem to have more pop and depth, for lack of a better description.

Anything other then guessing would require a better description or, better yet, sample files. But since the 5D3 has higher IQ then the 1D4 across the board, some good guesses include:

* You're viewing images at the same image viewer magnification (i.e. 50%) without realizing this actually magnifies the 5D3 image much more.

* Different in camera settings.

* Different RAW converter setting defaults or profiles.

And if you're not talking about a test pair produced under exact conditions (same subject, lighting, lens, exposure, etc) then anything and everything is in play including lenses, exposures, focusing, selected apertures and/or shutter speeds (beyond the obvious exposure differences), subject, lighting, etc, etc.

214
EOS-M / Re: EOS M or Powershot S110?
« on: September 07, 2013, 04:42:24 AM »
The EOS M isn't a pocket camera, but...I've never been satisfied by the IQ of pocket cameras. IMHO the M (APS-C) is a huge step up.

215
The problem is that other than the products I listed, no other Sigma lenses are the best in their class,

Sigma 50 f/1.4.

216
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 05, 2013, 09:00:50 PM »
I do not think there is much disagreement that their sensor tests, methods, and results are accurate and meaningful (at least for some uses).

Yes there is. The biggest debate I've seen in other forums is over their DR scores which do not match the results from other testers (dpreview; IR) and do not seem to match real world experience. IMHO a simple Stouffer transmission step wedge test is far more accurate and reliable then DxO's methodology.

DxO also "interprets" DR based on output/viewing size, which is absurd to me.

217
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 05, 2013, 08:56:15 PM »
yes you are right, if I want a video camera, but for now I love to take stills

IMHO there is an improvement at high ISO with the 6D / 5D3 over the 5D2, and an edge over competitors like the D600. DxO may disagree, but when I look at DPReview and Imaging Resource test shots, that's what I see.

Likewise my EOS M is better at high ISO then my 7D. Not by leaps and bounds, but there was some improvement.

Critiques portray Canon as standing still with antiquated sensor tech. They will point at the 18 MP APS-C line and say "look how old that is!" ignoring that each iteration brings some improvement. They're looking for a radical improvement in shadow noise (see the Sony patent) or MP, and ignoring small improvements over time.

Critiques also rely on DxO measurements which I find questionable. For example, DxO will tell you there was no DR improvement from the 10D/20D to the 7D. I owned all 3 and I noticed a significant DR improvement with the 7D.

Canon's moving forward in still photography sensor tech, just not at the pace some people want.

218
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Leads in Sensor Tech
« on: September 05, 2013, 08:45:07 PM »
Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.
I wish they would just remove the AA filter and be done with it.  Solve the problem in software and down scale.  But the movie crowd and some landscape photographers would scream bloody murder.  And insist software is just not good enough.

Software is not good enough

Beyond that I have yet to see an example pair where the AA version couldn't be sharpened to look the same as the non-AA version. Perhaps someone could post such an example, I admit I haven't extensively tested this. But the couple times sample pairs were available a quick USM brought them even.

219
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: IQ comparison; or how meaningful is DXO
« on: September 05, 2013, 04:12:39 PM »
DXO measures the sensor characteristics.  Those are hard facts. 

No, they are the results of DxO's testing process and interpretations. There's quite a bit of disagreement as to whether or not DxO's tests are accurate and/or meaningful.

220
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 06:19:49 PM »
The thing is Canon very much seems to have become a company that simply won't give about anything unless forced to,

Stop with the imaginary drama. You know...or should know for all you talk about DR...that the shadow noise issue traces back to a Sony patent. Canon can't do the same thing Sony can in designing their sensors. Do you expect Canon to close their fabs and become dependent on Sony over this issue?

Quote
so until everyone makes a big stink they will just toss us old, old tech sensors when it comes to low ISO performance for who knows how many more years or half decades.

Patents last 20 years. I don't know if Canon will be able to work around the patent, or if some other technology will make it moot, in less time. Probably the latter, but who knows when.

Quote
If the next round of cameras don't deliver then it's not like you'll just have been stuck with old tech for DR for a few months or a few years but for more than a decade.

Nice hyperbole, but in 2003-2005 Canon sensors were measurably better in all respects. (And yet I still told my Nikon lens owning friend to buy a Nikon DSLR. Imagine that!)

Quote
Just think of how much you have shot how many places you have been to over a decade. Who wouldn't want the option to have had expanded photographic possibilities for a whole decade?

Poorly processed concert photos and brick walls =/= "expanded photographic possibilities."

221
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 06:10:29 PM »
You do not "improve" on the RAW capture, you convert it.

Then improve your conversions.

Quote
BTW, this image in my computer is with black background. I am not a fan of pattern noise, and yes, I can see it even without 100% zoom. It was an example meant to counter the funny talk about 4 stop push, and "what, 4 stops only?" remarks, etc.

If you can see it on your monitor at <100% then you are pushing 4 stops, you're just doing most of the push with the brightness control on your monitor. Calibrate your monitor. I'm picky about this because I actually make prints, so my monitor is as close as it can possibly be to Epson 3880 prints under good viewing lights. And I have to close the blinds in my office to clearly see the banding you're complaining about even at 100%.

222
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 06:03:14 PM »
This is completely irrelevant. Did you even pay attention what post I replied to? Somebody posted a high ISO image, processed who knows how, and asked "where is the banding"? I posted a real world image, not pushed by 4 stops which shows banding. I could have posted a shot of an empty stage to make that point.

The banding is only evident after sub-optimal processing. And even then only barely so at 100% on a monitor. It would never show in print or at normal viewing sizes.

Quote
BTW, are you sure you understand what ETTR means? In light limited situations like this, the only benefit of ETTR may have is ... well, to compensate for the deficiency of the sensor (with minor, probably invisible tonality gain which diminishes greatly for low light)

I will concede that in this situation ETTR is not nearly as important as properly processing the file. And that it would be difficult to do consistently with rapidly changing lights.

But it's trivial to produce a version of your file with no apparent noise or banding.

Quote
Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with the shadows? Shouldn't t the banding be not there in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques.

Why would you "process with competence" shots from a sensor which has no problems with color? Shouldn't the color be pleasing in the first place? You are missing the point again. This is not a thread about pp techniques. When will Sony/Nikon have "modern sensors"?  8)

223
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 05:51:25 PM »
Second, you didn't ETTR, you did use +0.33 EC but that wasn't enough for an optimal RAW exposure.
Are you kidding me? This is a live subject. What ETTR?

What is: exposure compensation?

Quote
Quote
Third, your post processing exposes the fact that you just don't know what you are doing. Try this, I just did to your jpeg file. Exposure up 1.35 (that is where you should have been exposing by the way) Highlights down -37. That is how to post process your image, you have detail where you wanted it, but you have zero noise and banding even at 300% (with zero noise reduction).
The guy would not stay still, you know.

What does that have to do with the instructions on how to best post process this image? Did you even read what he said? Do you think he's telling you to shoot multiple exposures? (Hint: ETTR means Expose To The Right.) I just tried those two steps on your unprocessed JPEG and there's zero noise or banding on a properly calibrated monitor. (Key point I'm going to address in a moment.)

Quote
Quote
Fourth, even at 100% and badly processed the banding is not serious enough to destroy the image, a little noise reduction and it is gone anyway, try +35 NR in Lightroom and it disappears.
100% chroma NR does not put a dent on it. 80% lumina hides most of it. 35% lumina hides the random noise but leaves the pattern noise in place.

I can confirm that in ACR8.1 +35 NR eliminates the noise and banding, again on a properly calibrated monitor.

Why do I keep throwing in that phrase? Because if you shove the brightness on a monitor up (or stand up and stare down at an extreme angle) you can see some noise again. That's not how a print will look. And that's not how it will look on any normal monitor. But I've seen monitors with brightness / contrast / saturation shoved up so high that it's like adding 3EV to a photo while pushing the colors into neon. Since we're actually picking apart an example with instructions it's critical to view the results properly. If your monitor is not calibrated...and that includes more steps then just using the color pucks...fix it.

Quote
Nonsense. But even if I was guilty of not exposing correctly ("Hey, you, would you stay still for a moment? Thank you!") so what?

You're not exposing or processing correctly and you're not listening. The instructions had nothing to do with multiple exposures. Please re-read the post.

I went one step further in that I used the instructions with the unprocessed file and added 35NR and 50% sharpening to clear any noise but retain detail in the face, hands, etc. Guess what? There's not really any noise to see even if I shove the brightness up on my monitor. Even your poorly processed example would not show any noise in print. The properly processed one doesn't show any noise at all.

Now do you understand why we're sick of hearing about Sony sensors? Yes, they have cleaner shadows. Yes, that means they can take more abuse. But it's difficult to even imagine an edge case where it matters. To come up with such edge cases you have to imagine the absurd, like shooting with a broken flash. (You don't realize the flash isn't firing? You don't have a spare? You can't crank up the ISO when you realize...on the first shot...hey the flash is broke?)

Yet the people who push this in canonrumors (and I don't see this come up nearly as often any where else) act like the difference in shadow noise and pushed DR is literally the end of the world. Throw your Canon cameras away because it's just impossible to work without a "modern sensor."

That phrase also ticks me off. We all know that the difference in shadow noise comes down to a Sony patent. That doesn't mean Canon sensors aren't "modern." The sensor in my M is cleaner then the sensor in my 7D, and the 70D sensor is cleaner still. And I would say the 6D has a 1 stop high ISO noise advantage over the D600 with a normal exposure (as opposed to a +5EV no NR torture test zoomed 200% into a shadow). But somehow these sensors and improvements are not "modern"?

Whatever. Learn how to process your files, then maybe complain about a sensor.

224
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 05:02:37 PM »
There is a kernel of truth in this DR "debate" but most of the "examples" posted just don't stand up and do not actually illustrate  the "problem" at all, that is why there is such a staunch defense of Canon gear from some people here. You think your sensor failed you at that concert, it didn't, you didn't educate yourself on a competent way to use your equipment.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

225
EOS Bodies / Re: 70D and Dxomark....
« on: August 31, 2013, 05:02:55 AM »
Umm no, that is what the fanboys CLAIM the people who wouldn't more DR are all about when it is not remotely true. The only people mentioning underexposing everything by five stops are the pure fanboys, it sure ain't the people who wouldn't mind a bit more DR to work with in order to expand real world photographic possibilities.

The only examples I've seen demonstrating the 'undeniable awesomeness of Sony sensors' are walls at -5EV. If the 'crowd that just wants more DR' is producing better photographs (the kind people want to actually look at) thanks to Sony sensors, they sure as hell aren't posting any of them here.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 40