April 18, 2014, 08:44:40 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 30
226
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III, or 6D+7D combo - your thoughts?
« on: October 17, 2012, 04:09:16 PM »
Here is my dilemma.  I want to buy a FF camera to do more portraits, landscape, etc.  Do I sell my 7D and get a 5D III, or keep my 7D and get a 6D for a second body? (I couldn't justify the cost of the 5D III unless it could replace the 7D as well)

There's going to be very little difference between the two for landscape and portraits, contrary to the unsupported claims of people infatuated with FF. (I say unsupported because we never see photos or crops that illustrate any real difference at low ISO.) That said...

Quote
With the 5D III, I really only give up a couple of FPS vs the 7D and some reach which I would probably only miss in football.  I gain much better ISO performance for the indoor sports like volleyball, where the 7D can struggle (even with an 85mm f/1.8 I need ISO 3200 which honestly is poor on the 7D).

You can gain the reach back for football with a 1.4x tele, assuming your telephoto lens is compatible. While I do not concur that 3200 is poor on the 7D (if it is, you're processing it wrong), I think the 5D3 will show you the greatest difference with indoor sports. 3200 is excellent on the 5D3, and it's not the limit like it is on the 7D. (I will concur that by 6400 the 7D isn't doing so well.) For indoor sports the 5D3 is the camera to grab.

I love the 7D. I think it is one of the most well rounded bodies ever released by Canon, and still the king of crop 3 years later. But now that the 5D3 has a real AF module, a 5D3 + 1.4x can do the things that used to require a 7D.


227
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III, or 6D+7D combo - your thoughts?
« on: October 17, 2012, 04:01:03 PM »
Not sure if anyone else has said it, but the "reach" of the 7d vs a 5d3 is BS. Crop into the 5d3 frame and it will still be sharper than the 7d.

Sure it will. If you compare out of camera images with no sharpening or the same sharpening. The problem is crop sensors utilize lenses at a different point on their MTF curves and therefore require different sharpening amounts. It amazes me how many reviewers and testers fail on this single point. Failure to understand this also leads to much of the "huge, just huge difference" claims by FF fans.

Crop cameras put more pixels on target, period.

Having established that...the resolution differences are only apparent at large print sizes or with extreme cropping. Really it's only when doing both that the 7D pixel density advantage becomes clear, but you don't often have to do both. I have 20", 8-10 MP cropped 7D surfing prints that I could not have made with a 5D3 and the same lens, but that's the rare print. The subject matter you're typically trying to reach just doesn't stress MP like a wide angle landscape, and you typically don't have to crop that much for additional magnification.

I love the 7D for telephoto action (sports; wildlife). But...I could probably do >95% of what I do in those areas with a 5D3.

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

228
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:28:55 PM »
You're wrong in that thread too. Typically of the DxO bashers, your MO seems to be repeating the same falsehoods and hoping noone calls you on it.

Typical of the DxO defenders, your MO is name calling and begging the question and hoping no one calls you on it.

Quote
If you think the images truly do have the same dynamic range before and after you downsample, you need to normalize.

No, you need to perform the test and show us the results. That will put an end to this bickering.

Quote
The downsampled image will have less noise, therefore a lower blackpoint, and therefore more dynamic range on a per pixel basis even though it doesn't have more of what you'd intuitively think of as dynamic range.

I don't give a pile of used dog food about your white point - black point definition of DR. I'm not trying to make my blacks blacker. I can do that with NR and levels adjustments. I care about real, usable photographic detail. Down sampling and 'normalization' does not magically create new detail.

229
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:25:02 PM »
Not to mention, there is body-to-body variability.  Some 7Ds have very little banding, some, like mine, can show it in situations without even much of a nudge in post, let alone a 3 EV push.  I've had shots where just using "Landscape" as the raw preset in DPP is enough to bring out low ISO shadow banding.

Product variability is a real issue in any production run. If you saw this within your year warranty, the camera should have been shipped to Canon along with documentation of the problem (i.e. sample shots).

230
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:22:53 PM »
https://picasaweb.google.com/106266083120070292876/DR5dmk2VsD7000

3 summers ago 5dm2 and d7000  , 7d , s-95 and Fuji  , signal / noise in lower levels and banding

RAW files for analysis please.

231
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:22:13 PM »
* Exmor sensors do have more DR, and it can be useful.

finally

Nobody ever claimed otherwise.

Quote
Quote
* Exmor sensors do not have the amount of excess DR being claimed by fans or DxO.

false

Oh, well, you used the word false, I guess the debate is over  ::)

Quote
It hardly means you toss your Canon body into the swamp and then bash it with a sledgehammer but it sure would be nice if Canon paid attention to DR having not improved it for more than half a decade now.

I've seen improvements over that time period. DPReview saw improvements.

Quote
Do note that most of the recent posts have been started by the DxO are liars, exmor is whatever crowd though.
Some of the same crowd goes on raves about how far behind Nikon was when Canon beats them by like just 1/2 stop SNR is a huge win that trashes Nikon and then says more than 3 stops difference at low ISO is very minor, too minor to even bother about at all.

DxO are not liars, just confused.

I don't recall people raving to this level when Canon had the lower noise/wider DR sensors. I suppose some did. There are Canon fanboys just like Nikon fanboys.

There is 1-2 stops difference at low ISO, not "more than 3."

Quote
2. There you go again, along with Jrista, and not having a clue about how normalization works and spreading misinformation.

Your side has offered its argument for the accuracy of normalization. Our side has shown the argument to be false. Your side's only response has been "uh...you don't know what you're talking about!"

When you repeat that without answering our critiques, you effectively tap out of the debate and concede the point.

Quote
Quote
Whether or not the 5D4 has better DR has nothing to do with these stupid threads, and everything to do with their engineers. I have little doubt they are working on it.

Did you know that another division of Canon sent a patent for better DR to the DSLR division and got told to get lost, DR, what?, why? bye. Apparently they didn't even let their engineers look at it! So maybe they do need to be woken up.

Source?

Quote
Because some of you are totally wrong about some of the stuff you have been saying, especially when it gets to normalization and some other related topics.

Oh yeah? Well...you're totally wrong to infinity plus one, no changiees! So there!  ::)

232
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 08:09:33 PM »
Yes do that, especially when they (IR) use different parameters as shutter time in theirs test and use longer exposure together with Canon, go and take a look .

Too bad that's not the scene they use for the DR test  ::)

233
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 07:29:17 PM »
and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera

Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point.

Yes, I have owned most of Canon  SLR cameras and it is well documented, search on  my name and tests of various canon cameras.

So you have real world, 11 stop, 20D photographs to post here, yes?

234
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 07:28:03 PM »
This should be an interesting subject, because quantifying and understanding the sensor performance is the starting point to getting the best from it. Unfortunately, too many people here are incapable of contributing unless any metric shows that their purchase/favourite company is shown to be the best.

Oh please. I don't see a single Canon user here denying that there's some DR advantage to Exmor sensors. The question is how much, and how much difference does it make in the real world.

Quote
If you really think it is impossible then you should post the mathematical analysis that shows it to be so

No. Theory bends to observation, never the other way around. I think I posted this in another thread, so I'll post it again here: try drum scanning a 4x5 frame of Velvia, a 6 stop film, and then down sampling it to 8 MP, which is the DxO normalization. Tell us if 3 more stops of shadow detail magically appear, which is what DxO's formula predicts.

My prediction from years of scanning film: you will end up with a 6 stop, 8 MP file.

The problem is in the definition of DR. You're using theories that are only concerned with white and black points. But photographers are interested in usable photographic detail. Down sampling may reduce noise and therefore make your blacks blacker. But it doesn't magically open up shadows and produce details that were never there.

I will concede that down sampling can reduce noise thereby making a print of already existing detail acceptable, where if the noise were still there you might clip levels to black and discard the noise and detail. But it doesn't produce detail where there is none. It doesn't magically allow a 14-bit pipeline to yield more than 14 stops of real photographic detail. It won't even get it to 14 stops because in the real world ADC pipelines are not perfectly efficient.

BTW - Imaging Resource measured the D800 to 13.3 stops vs the 5D3 at 12.5. I trust their methodology a whole heck of a lot more than DxO's.

235
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 07:04:09 PM »
here you go, same exposure, time, f-stop and base iso ,  exposed  equally so no highlight are cut in the sky and clouds and then adjustes so we can see the landscape. My d800 to the left and one of mine 5dmk2

I don't see noise/banding that bad with a crop body and the slider pushed to 100%.

Please provide the RAW files for analysis.

236
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 07:02:38 PM »
Once again, I'll post my 7D example of a properly exposed & processed file. On your file below mine, You should be able to pull the same recovery as my image.

OH NOES! U CANNOT DO TATZ WITH TEH CANONZ!  ;D

Nice sample and point well demonstrated.

237
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 06:59:51 PM »
and yes d20 was a 11 stops camera

Yes or no: did you ever own a 20D?

If so, show me some 11 stop photos. If not, then we're done discussing this point. I have way too much experience struggling to get the range I wanted with the early xxD bodies, then getting it with less or no effort with the 7D, to debate this with someone reading graphs.

238
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:57:08 PM »
....<<to neuroanatomist, repeatedly>>...a link please to your scientific papers

Mikael, that is inappropriate and I think you should stop it. Everyone here is entitled to (a) their opinion, and (b) their anonymity if they choose it.

Discussions here can develop on the weight of the information and argument presented; there is no need to rely on the weight of authority. To do so would be short-cut thinking, relying on circumstantial evidence rather than the evidence itself.

+9,001

Let's see comparison photos with correct exposures where the Exmor file produces the award winning print and the Canon file goes into the trash. Everything else is irrelevant.

Side note: why is everything in photography like this? Why are small differences magnified and argued endlessly? The same exact pattern occurs in FF vs. crop, lens A vs. lens B, brand A vs. brand B. In the film days it was film A vs. film B. I've even seen this nonsense in discussions of tripods!

If you think there's a huge, just huge difference between A and B, do yourself this favor: produce the same image with A and with B. Print them to 20". Ask 20 people to tell you which is better or if they are the same. Listen to the results.

239
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:52:17 PM »
go back and read

More DxO derived used dog food. The 20D was not an 11 stop camera.

Do you have those Exmor photos for us to review yet?

240
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:46:05 PM »
Respond to me with facts.

No, you respond with facts. That's how this works because you are the one touting huge advantages for Exmor sensors. Where's your evidence? Where are your examples?

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 30