October 02, 2014, 01:32:24 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 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 50
226
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 23, 2014, 12:44:24 AM »
I'm not talking about DxO's reporting of DR, I'm talking about computing real well capacity and read noise from DxO's measurements.  DxO's interpretation of their own data is pretty much total crap, and I never visit their site.  But the raw measurements are useful if properly interpreted.

I don't disagree with this statement. The problem is that people go to their site and accept their DR and overall score values at face value.

227
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:47:26 PM »
"Photographic DR" would likely be less than DR measured this way, for a simple reason - we don't usually tolerate image detail that's near or at the noise floor.

DxO overstates DR for sensors with noise below their arbitrary threshold, and understates it for sensors with noise above their arbitrary threshold (especially in light of RAW conversion NR).

Perhaps more importantly, they're not measuring detail or steps in either case. If you photograph a step wedge with two cameras and one has slightly less noise in some of the otherwise pure black steps, DxO will count those as more DR! This is why when they "normalize" an image to 8 MP they report more DR.

It's silliness created by hardware nerds and not photographers. Someone needs to send DxO a few Ansel Adam's books.

228
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:35:32 PM »
Sony already dropped a crop camera with 79pt AF system (granted, not all cross-type, but still excellent by all accounts), 12fps burst, and a better sensor earlier this year for less than $1700.

Every time I've looked at user reports Sony's DSLRs could not keep up in AF tracking with Canon or Nikon bodies. Not the 7D, and certainly not the 1DX or 5D3.

It's not just point count. Many Nikon bodies have the same point count as the D3 or the D4. But talk to a Nikon shooter and the actual performance varies considerably. Didn't the D800 have the same "AF module" as the D4? I know a guy who will tell you straight out that it could not track like one. Not even close.

Quote
There is no reason that Canon should be falling behind Sony of all companies.

Have you compared lenses?  ;D

At this point a "revolution" in sensor tech will require multiple layers (for DR or for color) or at least 16-bit ADCs and sensel characteristics to produce meaningful bits beyond 14. This is true for Sony as well. I got excited when the rumors were for a multilayer sensor. Now that it appears this is not the case, I expect incremental improvements.

229
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 10:27:03 PM »
The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

which is also DR

Except for the part where it's not.

Quote
and mostly importantly regardless of how you feel like defining terms...

I didn't define the terms. These are standard terms which were in use in the photographic industry long before I was born.

Quote
Quote
And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor  ::)
yeah whatever sure

Try processing the files yourself sometime. When you intelligently use the NR sliders the difference is nothing like the drama tests. There is a difference, Exmor is better, but the difference becomes a more subtle one.

230
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:39:14 PM »
Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....

So we're going to draw conclusions from an entirely different format???

The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor  ::)

231
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:34:58 PM »
* DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.

DxO measures, but does not directly report, well capacity and SnR.

The method of determining DR from that is shown here:

http://sensorgen.info/Calculations.html

Great. That tells me what I already know. That they are not measuring or reporting photographic DR. And that there are formulas I would have to hunt down or reconstruct in order to verify their results. (Though I suppose that would be possible to do for anyone so inclined.)

Again, DxO DR measurements are nonsense.

232
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:30:21 PM »
In the past, it was said this would have some special video features.  Seems like servo mode for video is something that the 70D already has, at least in part, and 1080p60 is certainly nothing close to "special" as it exists on earlier Canon compacts, so where are the special video features?

I'm a stills photographer so I don't really care either way, but...if Canon hopes to gain rather then lose market share in this segment of the video market they really need to have 4k. And stop relying on hackers to put in critical features (no offense to the amazing ML team).

This is more of a shock to me then the sensor. I would have loved to see a multilayer sensor leap, but I'm not one of the people who is going to shed a tear if the 7D2 "only" has a 70D or moderately improved 70D sensor. I'm not mesmerized by DxO and I know most of what people fight over online is meaningless in the real world.

With apologies to Ansel Adams: There is nothing worse than a slightly higher DR image with slightly less shadow noise of a fuzzy concept.

That said...if these are the specs I will likely spend my money on other things and not upgrade my 7D for a while. The specs are solid, just not enough above what I have right now for what I do.

233
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:23:54 PM »
I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
Even for their regular tests there scenes and lighting have changed again and again.

Oh boy here we go...  :(

* The Imatest DR test is performed using a step chart. It has nothing to do with Imaging Resource's scene tests.

* "Normalizing" has nothing to do with photographic DR and does not change it in the least.

* You, I, or anyone else can personally verify Imatest results by simply looking at a transmission step wedge shot.

* DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.

* We cannot verify DxO's results because they are run through a 'black box' algorithm.

* DxO's results generally do not correspond to results obtained using a transmission step wedge. Put another way: you can see with your own two eyes that a 70D yields more DR then they claim, and that an Exmor sensor yields less.

234
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:41:28 PM »
But thats where the AF behaviour controls come in. I spent about three weeks worth of shoots getting my 7D to play nice to the point where I knew that for most scenarios with the right behaviour on my part it would give me a pretty much 100% focus hit rate (composition, exposure, facial experessions not so much)

This was the issue with the 7D on two fronts. Processing required some learning as well. It seems like everyone I knew in person who initially complained about IQ wanted to carry over settings from their 20D or 5D/5D2, as if the ACR sliders were locked.

I had a similar experience with AF. You had to have the right settings for the subject.

Quote
Ok let it have 65 af points thats great. just so long as it also has a dedicated af processor and isn't slowing things down elsewhere.

The 7D had a dedicated AF CPU. I can pretty much guarantee that the 7D2 does as well, or that the dual Digic 6 processors have enough bandwidth that handling AF is not an issue.

235
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:34:23 PM »
Why would foveon not need AA filters?

"Shipping" and "needing" are two different things. I haven't had enough time with a Foveon sensor to know whether or not they need an AA filter, but I believe they do not ship with them.

236
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:32:46 PM »
??? Where are you getting these numbers????

Imaging Resource tested the 70D using Imatest before they decided to cut costs by quoting DxO for DR measurements. The 70D has 13 stops of DR in RAW.

Naturally it's going to have more shadow noise then Exmor and therefore less latitude (ability to push the shadows up), though it's not that dramatic if you actually use the NR sliders in ACR.

I am deeply disappointed that Imaging Resource is abandoning Imatest for DxO. It leaves us without a reviewer who performs consistent, valid, photographic DR tests. (DPReview has basically dropped their "ACR best" testing and reports JPEG.) Future comments based on DxO SNR nonsense are going to be 10x what they are now.

237
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:11:19 PM »
a foveon sensor does not need an AA filter because it does not use a bayer pattern.

Of course a foveon sensor needs an AA filter (unless it's like say maybe 60MP+ APS-C or something).

Wikipedia disagrees  ;D

I was under the impression that the Foveon sensors shipped without AA filters, though I wouldn't swear to it.

238
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:07:00 PM »
I use Lightroom. Trust me when I say I had several 7D's, and all of them performed this way regardless of settings.  My 70D is much, much better.

So the fact that I don't see this means I have a special 7D?  ::)

If it wasn't a settings issue then probably a focus issue.

239
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:01:54 PM »
Sure but a 20MP vs a 24MP is 10% difference on X and Y axis approximately. Are Canon that much behind the competition?

No they are not. Not too long ago I spent an unreasonable amount of time comparing files from the Sony A7 (24 MP AA filter) to the A7R (36 MP no AA filter). I always resized the 24 MP file to 36 MP with very light sharpening (scaling tends to soften) so that size (and therefore magnification) differences didn't affect my judgement.

You're looking at a nearly 25% axis gain in this comparison vs. 10% for the APS-C sensors.

My conclusion? Occasionally an area of very, very fine detail would be rendered better on the 36 MP sensor. This would be visible while pixel peeping but never in print.

I came to a similar conclusion when I mixed in 5D3 files, though the 5D3 file must be RAW. The JPEGs fell behind. Also, when converting the 5D3 file you have to be a bit more aggressive with the detail and sharpening settings. The Sony sensors would handle heavy processing a bit better because of this.

At the resolutions we're dealing with today I would say you need a 50% gain on each axis before differences become visible in print, all other differences (i.e. sensor size) being equal.

240
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 07:19:38 PM »
The 7D was the softest Canon DSLR I've owned (and I've owned a bunch). So any move away from that buttery, waxy look is progress.

You weren't using the right ACR settings...or were using DPP. (Seriously.)

That said, I agree with you on RAW sharpness and taking more post processing. I wouldn't miss an AA filter.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 50