October 26, 2014, 02:08:46 AM

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 ... 54
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:07:41 AM »
You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights?  ;D

I've seen their video. Makes me want LED lights.

You can hang out with the cool young people by the pool and campfire if you have LED lights.

I wonder where you have to hang out if you have an old noisy Canon sensor?  :P  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 11:06:35 AM »

Crap, what do I do about the new Sony???  I need to shoot black cats in unlit coal mines and the Nikon is inferior to the Sony.  I guess the Nikon is junk and I need to get the Sony.  I'm so confused.

Please advise on which I should choose - the Nikon D810 or Sony A7S.

I found that the Apple iPad works best for taking pictures of black cats in unlit coal mines... see the attached example and notice how black the black is and how there is no noise or banding....

I'm so sad because I photographed a black cat in an unlit coal mine with my Canon, pushed the shadows 9,001 stops, and this was the result. Darn you Canon! Darn you!!!

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:28:31 AM »
You are a sad person - is Canon paying you?

Nope. That's why I'm sad. I can only get Pentax to pay me.

Say...have you seen their new SLR with all the LED lights?  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 10:25:23 AM »
How much is Canon paying you to suffer and defend the brand? 

Nothing. But I'll take a 1DX and that new 400 DO  ;D

If the threads bug you, don't read them. 

At first they were mildly interesting. But there are...what...a half dozen threads that either started on this topic or were hijacked to this topic? My post was sarcastic, but the more I think about it...

As far as I can tell, the D810 is a Nikon-version of the 5D3, but with a substantially better sensor.

So much better you might even be able to tell the difference while pixel peeping  ::)

Post Processing / Re: Noise, shadows, etc.
« on: August 29, 2014, 06:07:16 AM »
Thank you for your comments Keith. I'm going to give C1 a try.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 06:01:19 AM »
you really should compare using the normalized chart:

that said it still doesn't quite match the 5D, much less outdo it

* Open Comparometer.
* Compare old 5D and modern 70D.
* DxO is wrong again.  ::)

Serious question: does anyone at DxO even own a camera?

That said, I wouldn't expect crop sensors to match today's FF sensors on noise for another few years, at which point FF will be that much better. For a given level of tech the larger sensor simply gathers more light. I seriously doubt that the 7D2 sensor will make some kind of leap to FF high ISO, and if it does then the 5D4 won't be far behind with the same tech and even better high ISO.

That doesn't mean crop is a slouch at high ISO though. Its gotten pretty good.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:55:22 AM »
It has better dynamic range (if you don't know how to maximise DR in Canon files), but that does not equate to "better image quality", and the 5D Mk III lacks for nothing in terms of overall IQ compared to the Nikon at the image level.


How many of these "Is Nikon better?" threads does this forum have to endure? I mean really...is Nikon paying people for this?

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D Mark II & Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:27:15 AM »
When was the last time that we had two sensors having the exact same MP resolution but were "different " ?
I'm afraid it looks like the 7D II will have the 70D sensor . The 70D sensor is pretty good though, its just that we are expecting two sensor revolutions in two years ..which is incredibly rare.

I realize if it has the 70D sensor that this will disappoint many. But if they keep the price down I'm fine with it. The 70D is a clear improvement in noise/DR over the original 7D, and 65 cross AF points at 10 fps is awesome. I don't think they can coast 5 years on this sensor, but as long as they don't price it into the stratosphere there is nothing that can touch it for action and sports right now outside of the top end 1DX / D4.

Now if they try to charge an arm and a leg for it, I'll just stick to my current 7D for sports/action. If they want to charge more then $2k (street price...we all know MRP is artificially high) then they have to have something "revolutionary" IMHO. Those rumors have been squashed. So we'll see what the price ends up being.

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 06:13:01 PM »
Sure, that's an option. You guys are STILL missing the point. Manually blending with layer masks and whatnot is STILL MORE WORK.

I get the point. But you overestimate what can be done with Exmor. The guys I know with Nikon and Sony have not abandoned their HDR software or GND filters. At least one person in that other thread who owns both Canon and Sony told you that the difference was simply not night and day like you seem to think it is.

Your darkest sunflower shot would not have worked on Exmor. You're focusing on the noise, but the tonality is mud that deep in the shadows. If the sun is in the frame and not masked by fog or a marine layer you are going to have to deal with the insane luminance range using filtration or multiple exposures. I would guess that's not really going to change until we have 20 stop sensors.

The river shot with the triangle patch of sky...I'm somewhat surprised you don't have a frame you can successfully process, and I can't help but wonder if you are being too critical of noise that will never be seen in print. I could certainly be wrong, I wasn't there, but I've shot scenes that seem similar and come home to discover I didn't need to blend.

Processing wide luminance range scenes will occasionally be easier with Exmor. You will occasionally be able to use a single frame where you would have decided to blend at least two on Canon. Not all the time. That said if you want occasionally easier...pick up an A7 or A7R and an EF lens adapter. Problem solved.

Going on and on about this on forums is not going to change anything on Canon's development schedule by even one second. It's false to assume Canon could release an Exmor type sensor tomorrow but they're being lazy. It's also false to assume that any of this is going to push them to produce something sooner.

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:01:22 PM »
There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:
I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either.

Blend two of the frames with a layer mask and "paint" in either the sky or the shadows (depending on which frame you want to be the primary.)

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:54:31 PM »
I think I would be more impressed with these sorts of photographers if they produced something artistically compelling when they did this.  I keep harking back to the infamous Fred Miranda comparison of the 5dIII and the D800 where he shot a bunch of beautiful photos in Yosemite but to demonstrate how bad the Canon was he had to go find a special scene to demonstrate it and produced a photo that was unusable for anything but his demo.  this after he proved that he could shoot such magnificent shots with the Canon equipment.

This is why I comment that most of this whole sensor argument is hype for the most part.


For such huge differences it sure is hard to tell one sensor from another...even one format from another (m43, APS-C, FF)...while browsing work at Flickr and 500px.

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:51:05 PM »
With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.

This might be a case where Magic Lantern's dual iso mode (and auto ETTR) helps, at least that's how I've used it in challenging situations, letting auto ETTR expose iso 100 to not clip (or let them clip a bit) highlights and then have iso 800 or so help with shadows.

Something's not adding up. 2 more stops of range != 5-9 shots in an HDR merge. Heck, if all you need is 2 stops you can fire off two frames and quickly blend them without any HDR software using a layer mask. You can hand hold that with most DSLRs.

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:28:04 AM »
I never shot/developed film, but my understanding is that there's a difference between digital "dynamic range" and film "exposure latitude."  Maybe someone who knows something of this can chime in...

There was a difference between those terms in the film world before digital. Also: "dynamic range" didn't really take hold in the film word until scanners became common place. Sometimes "exposure latitude" was used to describe what we would call DR today. Other times it might be called exposure range or luminance range.

Strictly speaking, exposure latitude is how far the film can be pushed/pulled during printing to render correct tones given an underexposed/overexposed scene that was still within the film's total exposure or dynamic range.

So if you have a 10 stop film and you shoot a 4 stop scene underexposed by 3 stops, can you make a successful print?

I would argue that exposure latitude is more appropriate to describe what we observe with Exmor sensors. Time and again examples show that Canon sensors are recording similar shadow detail, it's just marred by noise. If that noise can be successfully cleaned up, the IQ differences are minimal. In very deep shadows it is often difficult or impossible to clean up. In either case, Exmor clearly has more exposure latitude at the hardware level.

I don't think this has been covered yet so, er... Pow!


If they actually sold under the brand name Megatron I would buy more of their lenses  ;D

EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 11:33:43 PM »
The need for extended DR in landscape photography confuses me. Velvia, long the standard for 4x5 color photography, had 4-5 stops of DR and produces the most beautiful images.

I would actually place it at 5-6, but regardless slide landscapes often used GND filters. Galen Rowell was one of the innovators here.

Printed images only have 4-5 stops of contrast.... if the scene has a huge dynamic range as shot it probably won't look good printed now matter how you shoot and process it.

I would have to disagree with this. You're obviously compressing the scene luminance range down to something that can fit on paper, but done properly it looks very good and closer to what the human eye would see. Adam's original Zone System itself was a system for predictably doing this.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 54