Messages

211

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 26, 2012, 02:14:24 PM »

I think the main point of this thread isn't that we want to shoot the sunset without filters and expect perfect exposure from shadows to the sun itself.  I think what people are wanting is Canon to produce a sensor with DR that other manufacturers have already achieved.

LOL! No one else has achieved this.

See KeithR's posts for dramatic examples of recovery on Canon's 18 MP sensor. Nikon's 16 MP sensor is better than this, but not by much, certainly not by the amount people make it out to be.

Go back to the introduction date of the 7D, the first body with Canon's new 18 MP sensor. I'm pretty sure at that moment Canon had the widest DR crop sensor. Whoever has the newest sensor is likely to have the lowest noise / widest DR until a newer one comes out.

212

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 26, 2012, 02:09:10 PM »

You still get a tone curve processing in RAW.  you have to manulipate it to get a little more DR.  Then images tend to look flat.  DPR tells you the real world info.  Its like a statement of what you get off the showroom floor whan you buy a automobile, its what many, if not most get.

When you process a RAW for maximum DR you don't leave the image flat and walk away. And you don't lose detail if your output device can't handle 10 or 11 stops. You're basically getting all the detail out of the RAW that you can, compressing it down for monitor or print, and restoring the missing contrast and color without blowing back out the shadows and highlights (i.e. LCE, vibrance, saturation...sometimes with masks to protect specific areas).

213

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 26, 2012, 02:02:04 PM »

Have you ever manipulated a low ISO D3x or D700 file and then gone an manipulated one from Canon? The difference is every bit as real as DxO says it is.

Yes I have. No it is not. Shoot a transmission step wedge with just about any body and compare your results with DxO. Then you'll understand why I laugh at their DR claims.

214

EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...

« on: February 25, 2012, 07:57:55 PM »

jrista - DxO DR tests are highly inaccurate. You can disprove them yourself by simply buying and shooting a Stouffer transmission step wedge.

I don't know of any Nikon or Sony sensor which can capture 13.8 stops on a transmission step wedge. Canon's 18 MP crop sensor yields about 10 stops, while Nikon's 16 MP crop sensor yields about 11. The 5D2 is good for about 11 stops, as are Nikon's FF sensors.

In all of the above cases, if you're willing to dual process and merge your RAW file, and accept some additional shadow noise, you can probably squeeze 1 more stop out of the file, at least with Adobe's converter.

I don't see any great difference between Canon and Nikon bodies in this regard. On crop Nikon has a slight edge because their 16 MP sensor is one year newer than Canon's 18 MP sensor. I'll be curious to see what the new generation of sensors can do. But I think we're a couple generations away from a sensor which can handle, in a single exposure, landscapes with a wide scene brightness range without filters or HDR. Even color portrait films generally can't handle those scenes, and B&W only could with specialized processing and printing.

While I'm on the topic, I also consider DxO's color tests to be meaningless. Color differences between modern DSLRs are one or more orders of magnitude less than differences introduced by RAW converters, post processing, monitors, printers, and even paper choices. Sensor color differences are, with rare exception in narrow applications, effectively invisible to humans.

215

EOS Bodies / Re: 22MP - 36MP how much more resolution does it equal

« on: February 24, 2012, 02:33:53 PM »

A question because I can't work it out!

It's a 31% increase in linear resolution over the 5D2, or 27-28% over the 5D3 depending on how Canon rounded to 22 MP.

a jump of 14MP might look impressive on paper, but I have this funny feeling that it doesn't actually translate to all that much more in terms of a percentage gain in resolution,

It's the difference between printing at 24-30" (5D2; landscape; critical review) and printing at 32-40" (same conditions). If you relax the conditions you can print larger with either, but the D800 will always be able to go about 1/3rd larger assuming no other limiting factors. In some situations it may be even more than 1/3rd. If foliage at a certain distance is well rendered at 36 MP, but mushy at 21 or 22 MP, then you might be able to push the D800 image a bit more, maybe to 48" yet still remain critically sharp and detailed.

For a landscape or studio photographer, this is significant.

all of course at the cost of extra noise, loss of dynamic range, and early onset of diffraction issues.

I highly doubt D800 images will have more noise for a given view/print size. Only pixel peepers will see more noise. Likewise diffraction will not impact D800 images any more than 5D2/5D3 images for a given view/print size.

DR may be lower due to smaller pixels, but this may also prove insignificant. The difference in pixel size is much greater between the 5D2 and 7D, yet the DR gain is only one stop.

216

EOS Bodies / Re: Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?

« on: February 23, 2012, 06:18:50 PM »

Most of us want great low light quality and i can't see the d800 being as good as a 22mp 5d mk3 in low light.

It's a myth that lower pixel density = superior noise for the total image. Total image noise is driven by total sensor surface area and technology level until you reach the pixel densities we see in P&S sensors. Unless Canon has made a leap beyond the technology available to Nikon, I honestly expect the D800 to match the 5D3 in high ISO noise.

Pixel size is related to DR because smaller pixels saturate faster. But I doubt this is an issue with either. If Canon's now "old" 18 MP crop sensor can pull 10-11 stops, a D800 can probably yield 12 or more. That's getting into color portrait film territory.

217

EOS Bodies / Re: Will the suggested 5d III specs satisfy your photograpy needs?

« on: February 23, 2012, 02:38:24 PM »

Nope.

* Better AF and faster fps are welcome improvements, but it doesn't have the MP to make up for the loss of crop factor which is important for my action shots. So it can't help there.

* For landscapes it doesn't have any more resolution than the current 5D2. If I can't tell the difference in 24" landscape prints between the current 5D2 and my 7D, then why would I be able to tell with a 5D3? Upgrading my crop UWA glass to FF glass would be a substantial investment and would only be worth it if I can get significantly more resolution for larger, more detailed landscape prints.

I don't begin to understand Canon's reasoning here. It's like they positioned the 5D3 closer to the 1Dx and further away from the landscape / studio / wedding camera it's supposed to be. They're going to cannibalize their own 1Dx sales on one end, while Nikon eats into their sales on the other with the D800. And I have to wonder: how many 5D2 users will consider upgrading? 5D2 AF is a sore spot, but for many the center point works good enough to get the job done. Are they really going to drop $3k for an AF update?

I don't have money burning a whole in my pocket right now, so I'll sit tight with my 7D for the moment. But if Canon doesn't have an answer for the D800 this year, there's a good chance I will be adding Nikon to my lineup.

Canon's crop bodies all look good against the competition right now. But Canon seems to be falling behind in FF even though they were the first ones there.

218

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which method gives better IQ? Shoot with APS-C or Shoot with FF then crop to APS

« on: February 16, 2012, 03:27:50 PM »

I'm a bit confused when you say "crop to APS-C size". Once you capture an image, a pixel is a pixel, there's no difference between APS-C and FF. If you're talking about cropping to get the same field of view, now you're starting to talk.

Same difference.

But, why worry about that? Just take a few steps forward or back on FF and get the field of view that makes the image, NOT that matches your APS-C sensor.

You can't always do that.

All else being equal (including the framing/composition/etc), the 5d2 will give you much better overall image quality in good lighting, and especially in low lighting.

If you're FL limited and have to crop to match the FoV from the 450D then it will probably be a wash. I doubt the 5D2 will be "much better overall", though it might prove a little better.

In low lighting much of the 5D2's advantage will also be gone in a FL limited scenario, but not all of it because the sensor is newer.

219

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Which method gives better IQ? Shoot with APS-C or Shoot with FF then crop to APS

« on: February 16, 2012, 11:49:56 AM »

Not sure if you were serious or not. 

The 5D MKII sensor is huge compared to the 450D... 36x24 versus 24x12. It also offers a much bigger image so even though the crop may give you a little more reach, the 5DMKII sensor will pick up more light, more details, and should give you an over all better image.

But after he crops the FF image to APS-C dimensions to get the same effective FoV / magnification, the FF will not be picking up more light or detail. It will pick up the same amount of light, and 8 MP vs. 12 MP.

Given equal technology levels noise would be the same, but in this case the 5D2 is newer so it might have better noise after the crop, and will have wider DR. Resolution is resolution and the 12 MP Rebel should be able to out resolve the 5D2 under these conditions. That said, in practice the resolution and noise differences will probably be meaningless, but that still leaves the 5D2 with greater DR.

Now if you do not need to crop the FF image to APS-C dimensions, naturally the 5D2 will resolve more and produce better, larger prints as well as performing much better at high ISO.

220

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 08:41:28 PM »

Pixel peeping - I'm not sure how you're going to pixel peep if you "stop taking images" - you generally need an image first in order to peep it.   By pixel peeping I should clarify I don't mean just head-butting the monitor and 1:1 zoom of the image. The noise/color differences of the inferiority of the 7D is well noticeable to me at "normal viewing distances".  I'll scan through my photos quickly in Lightroom and hit an image and think "ahh what's not right about that one?" and then check EXIF and then go... ah!! another 7D image. True story. I'm not biased - just calling it how I've seen it.

If other people are producing prints and even 100% crops that cannot be discerned from 5D2 shots, then perhaps you are doing something wrong.

I won't embarrass you by listing my achievements both commercial and otherwise...no I won't start - it's not about me - it's about the cameras

No one cares. Can you pass a double blind test and tell us, with 100% accuracy, which prints or crops come from which camera when both are shot/processed to maximum potential? That's all that matters.

If anyone suggests that the 7D has the image quality of the full frame (and I'm not sure that you are but if you are....) then you're sadly mistaken. I suggest you get to the eye doctor ASAP, or upgrade your monitor... or both!

For properly processed, low to mid ISO shots there are no significant differences. Yes, there is a difference out of camera with neutral settings, but nobody I know shoots or prints that way.

The 5D2 pulls ahead at high ISO, though the 7D does quite well through 3200 for normal print sizes. Oh yeah, I just had my yearly eye exam (20/10).

They will love you even more if you trade up to full frame and then buy a swag of L lenses

Rumors are rumors and this 7D rumor is probably rubbish. But...if Canon fails to answer the D800 and fails to continue their pro crop body, Nikon will eventually get my money. Will Canon still love me then?

Canon needs a high MP FF body and a fast, professional level, sports orientated crop body. I hope they realize that.

221

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 08:26:59 PM »

Also, the corp-factor argument for extra reach is getting tired, even Canon showed us this with the 1D X. Sports and wildlife shooters need reach, but plenty of them use full frame Nikons. If you are a pro that needs super reach you get the lens for it.

And if you don't have the $5-15k required for the lenses you need but Nikon offers a pro level crop body...you go to Nikon? Some how I don't think that's a winning strategy for Canon since the number of people on a budget who want a pro level crop camera exceed the number of pros who can shoot FF sports cameras with super expensive telephotos.

222

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 08:16:18 PM »

What you're asking for is a cheap 1D with an APS-C sensor, not a 7D. I want a 1D that makes coffee as well. Probably not going to happen.

The 7D is already a "cheap 1D with an APS-C sensor." But if they reposition it in the xxD line I doubt it will get some of the emerging pro features. I don't care what they call it as long as it has the specs I want. And I want a pro level APS-C body.

223

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 12:26:08 PM »

I would gladly buy a 7D mkii with a 1.3 crop factor!

Why? It won't have the high ISO of FF nor the crop advantage of 1.6x. And it can't use the excellent, low cost UWA zooms available for crop. I think I would purposely ignore an APS-H body at this point.

224

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II? [CR1]

« on: February 14, 2012, 12:21:52 PM »

I should know as I own two 5DMarkII's and a 7D. I bought the 7D thinking it would be close to the 5D in image quality, or at least in the same ballpark. I was excited by its features and thought I could live with a small drop in IQ for the sake of all those other goodies. Unfortunately it's not even close.

I get so beyond tired of this nonsense. I have made 24" prints from the two cameras and posted 100% crops online, and in both cases asked viewers to tell me which came from which camera. Note that I did not show them labeled views, but unlabeled ones. Not once has any viewer successfully done this. Over a dozen print views and well past a hundred online views and not one person could even guess correctly.

At high ISO, there's a difference. At low to mid ISO they're not only close, they're so close that it's impossible to tell them apart in a real test. I regularly make large prints and I consider paper choice to have a greater impact on final IQ than the choice between these two sensors.

If you show a human being two identical prints...same exact image...and tell them one came from a model A camera but one came from a much better model B camera, the average viewer will tell you they see the difference and the B print is much better even though the prints are identical. Some will even go into great detail as to why B is better! This is human nature. It's the inescapable way our brains are wired. The true test is to show unlabeled images and ask which, if any, is better, or if they are the same. And guess what happens in those tests...

1. You have a fantastically featured awesome little camera with great autofocus, button layout, flash trigger capabilities, weather sealing, responsiveness...yadda yadda yadda.... but with a horrible sensor

The sensor is fantastic and is better for those in focal length limited situations.

That lineup is just whack and they should really do a sensor swap. Canon will address this by putting crop sensors solely back into the XXD line with the 70D, and boosting the features of the 5DmarkIII so they meet or surpass the 7D - guaranteed. Well shots per second *might* be down a bit, and there will be no onboard flash but these are the only exceptions I can think of).

That and pixels on target. I use a 7D heavily for sports photography, and I do not want to sacrifice the crop factor or a single frame per second. I have numerous 24" prints that involved more cropping with a final image size of 9-10 MP. On a 5D2 or a theoretical 5D3 at 22 MP I would have ended up with 3-4 MP, not enough for the print.

Canon needs a pro crop body geared for sports. The 7D basically filled that role. Perhaps a 70D would as well, but my fear is that they would cripple it somehow to make it clearly lower in the lineup than the 5D3. Which would put us back to the days when Nikon had the only pro crop body.

A 61pt AF 22 MP 5D3 will compete against the 1Dx, but not the D800. I can tell you right now if Canon doesn't have an answer for the D800 this year at a comparable price point, I will have a D800. The 5D2 was successful because it was squarely targeted at wedding/portrait/landscape/studio work with 21 MP and high quality video at a much lower cost than Nikon's 25 MP body. Now Nikon is offering those users 36 MP at a comparable price point, and I know one pro wedding photographer who has already ordered one even though most of his current equipment is Canon.

Put simply, for sports work I want fast frame rates and crop because I'm typically FL limited. For landscapes I want MP, MP, MP. Canon could possibly fill both roles with a FF body that offered 8 fps and 35 MP or more (more would be better). But if they do that at the D800 price point, then what's the point of the 1Dx?

If your 7D ego has just been bruised then I suggest you get yourself a full frame camera and start pixel peeping and see the "full frame light" my friend

Been there, done that, didn't see the light, and neither can anyone else when put to the test. I hate pixel peepers any way. I make prints. I don't sit in a dark room all night studying images for flaws at 400%.

225

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Do FF cameras perform better in low light conditions?

« on: February 05, 2012, 02:26:41 PM »

Others are pointing out that with the ability to use ISO 3200, you can get shots with the 5D you simply can; not get with any APS-C, 7D included; lower light or stopping action with higher shutter speeds

Not to pick on your post in particular, but...it's ridiculous to claim the 7D is unusable at 3200. The 7D is quite good at 3200. I do apply NR at that ISO, but I would with a 5D2 as well. It's at 6400 that things start to become iffy on the 7D, where the 5D2 is still easily usable.

Anyone who gets an unusable 3200 shot from a 7D is either a) severely underexposing, or b) using a workflow that exaggerates noise.

That said, I have found myself in gyms where I was pushed to shoot f/1.8 and ISO 3200, right at the edge on the 7D's envelope so to speak. I don't know what the gyms are like where Stevens is shooting.