March 06, 2015, 11:39:18 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 58
241
EOS-M / Re: Anything new on EOS-M3? How it may compare to A6000?
« on: September 04, 2014, 01:22:05 AM »
Question from a newbie here.

Comparing the recent price drop on the M. Are the differences in quality really worth the additional expenses of shifting to a different system sony,fuji,olympus? Considering, that is, if one already has a number of ef lenses.

If your M+ef and efm lenses covers what you want in a mirrorless AND you're not itching for an EVF or tilt screen...then no. Well...maybe if you're looking at the Sony A7's for low light or more resolution. Otherwise, no.

For what it is the M is great. Its problem is that it's out there by itself rather then being the entry into a larger MILC ecosystem.

242
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 02:28:26 PM »
I can't compete with you on technical knowledge yet I've seen far too many articles to think that every article is biased in Nikon's favour. 

They're not biased, they're just splitting hairs or...worse...concocting ridiculous tests that have nothing to do with the real world.

The Exmor 36 MP sensor is better by a small margin. To rant about it blowing away the 5D3 sensor or negating Canon FF to Facebook status...Ken Rockwell isn't that silly.

243
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 02:26:24 PM »
Lifted shadows look awful with Canon.

No. They look awful when people come up with unrealistic, underexposed tests and turn off all NR. They look fine when you expose like a trained photographer for a real world scene and use a little NR.

Quote
And resolution of D810 with a good lens is unsurpassed in FF. Guess everyone open-eyed would agree.

Except that you literally cannot tell the difference in large prints. Most of the glowing over 36 MP comes down to people not scaling the comparison image up correctly with light sharpening. I just went through this deciding which Sony A7 I want to buy. When pixel peeping you will catch differences in very fine textures, tiny patterns, and tiny high contrast details (i.e. small print).

In a 24" or 36" print? Good luck. And that's off an Epson professional printer to Hot Press Bright.

When Canon ships a higher rez sensor they need to go to 50 MP+. You need a 50% gain on each axis to matter in a print.

Quote
Who cares about numbers or DXO-charts when something is so obvious. Just view the files!

We have. Repeatedly.

244
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:51:41 AM »
It comes from DXO's perceptual sharpness value, aka turn all the resolution data from a lens into a single number.  The best part is that he spends 1/2 the video using those numbers as the basis for all of his comparisons and then in the second half he has a section where he looks at a specific lens, and comes to the conclusion that even though the perceptual sharpness number looked incredible for a certain lens, it turned out to be unusably soft.  Oops.

I was about to point that out. More nonsense from DxO. Rather then use industry standard tests and terminology (lpmm at MTF50 and MTF10) take a well defined, simple term and twist it into something it's not, something that is intentionally confusing for new and veteran photographers alike.

Then someone like Tony jumps on the fictitious "score" to "prove" a point. Kind of like DxO's views on DR and overall sensor scores.

Man I'm growing to hate that site.

245
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:15:23 AM »
...cough....5DIII is a 24 MP camera body???.... :o :o ;) ???

One reason I think Kai is not the worst.

Tony needs a writer.

LOL! First time I saw Kai was when he ripped on the EOS M. Being an M fan I think I ripped on him in a forum or two...not that he would ever read it, know me, or care  :D

Watching more of his videos...I actually like him. You're not going to get in depth info there, but I think he's fair overall and practical. He even went back and was more even handed with the M after the firmware update.

246
Canon General / Re: Another Northrup - Canon vs. Nikon
« on: September 03, 2014, 06:54:47 AM »
...cough....5DIII is a 24 MP camera body???.... :o :o ;) ???

No matter how good you are, there's always someone better.  I never thought I'd find someone who makes Ken Rockwell look more technically competent and less biased, but Tony's da man.

I have to shoot some photos for Facebook today...according to Tony I can go ahead and use Canon FF  ;D

247
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:54:22 AM »
It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between total dynamic range and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.

I do. How does that change when they directly said that the Canon was a good 2 stops behind and not up to the standards of other current sensors?

Obviously you do not. Read my last post to jrista to find the answer to your question.

Quote
And of course ACR hasn't changed from release to release or how it treats camera to camera, nope, nobody ahs ever noticed any changes there....

Once again: NR does not change total DR. You want an objective measurement? It's total DR. You want a subjective "quality" assessment? Might as well shoot it yourself because this changes from scene to scene, view size to view size, and person to person.

Quote
Umm, no, they are measuring system DR, they don't measure the best the photosites can do and de-couple the sensor from the camera's downstream ADC and such,

They are looking at sensel SNR (which naturally involves the entire chain to the RAW file being written) and "predicting" DR from that. Don't know how else to tell you the sky is blue.

248
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:49:49 AM »
Quote
The total range. Stepchart is extremely sensitive at detecting a camera’s total dynamic range, even when dark areas are extremely noisy or boundaries between chart zones become indistinct. This number is usually not a good measure of camera performance.

I appreciate that IR has a large database of Imatest step wedge tests to reference, but that does not imply agreement with everything they might say or every subjective evaluation they might make.

"Camera performance" is subjective. Total DR is not. What is "unacceptable shadow noise" while pixel peeping at 200% on a bright monitor (or analyzing with software) may be "minor and inconsequential" in a 36" print and "invisible" in a 24" one. What is "high quality" DR under one set of processing and viewing conditions might be "invisible difference" under another. You look at the FM example with NR applied and see a large difference where I see something that no one could detect in a 24" print.

And...I will add...every single attempt at a real world side by side test we have seen supports my use of "photographic DR." Both Fred Miranda's example and the Coke box example show nearly the same DR for both cameras. The difference is in the shadow noise which only becomes apparent when you push the shadows 3+ stops. The tones are there, you just can't lift them up as far with the Canon due to the noise. The difference is therefore in exposure latitude, not dynamic range. (Although, again, Exmor usually does have a bit more DR as well.)

You are running to subjective, interpretive definitions to cling to your point rather then observing actual evidence. That's why we keep butting heads. You talk and read and talk and read...and talk and talk and talk...but never observe. You're in the mode of defending a position rather then questioning and expanding it.

249
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:23:38 AM »
Have you shot a step wedge and tried to use NR to make black and white steps gray yet?

No?

Please go try  ;D

I wouldn't consider that valid. Applying noise reduction means your injecting an arbitrary SOFTWARE factor into the process. If you measure after NR, then your not measuring the camera. Your measuring the camera plus what the software does to the camera's output.

LOL! JRISTA! The whole POINT is that no amount of NR will change the total DR! NR before Imatest will impact the "quality" measurements, just like it affects exposure latitude. But not total.

You are right that sensor+NR is not a sensor test but a system or "best possible" test. Though in practical terms I think this is just as important because we do not process with zero NR. When Fred Miranda or...worse...infomercial captain Tony Northrup...compare the two with no NR, but fail to show the example with some NR, it is very misleading as to what one's real world results will be. But if you want to know what sensor shadow noise is like, you can't apply NR before hand.

But total DR...which includes tones you can distinguish even though they might have noise...tones which are likely OK if you do not push shadows...is not going to be affected by NR.

Quote
You mind sharing one of your unmodified RAW 41-step wedge shots? I'd like to experiment with it before I buy one, see what I come up with.

Actually I do. At this point I seriously want you to buy one and play with it. Not to be a jerk, but I think you will enjoy and learn. (I don't have a 5D3 shot any way. Though in the near future I might go ahead and shoot every relevant camera I can get my hands on and post all of them.)

It won't change your opinion on Exmor vs Canon in the real world, you'll have to rent a D800 or A7 for that. To be clear, they are better. There are times when you can get away with one Exmor frame where you would want two Canon frames. Or for those who manually blend, leave one frame off the blend (i.e. 2 for Exmor vs. 3 for Canon). It does happen. But ultimately you are usually doing the same things on Exmor as on Canon to manage wide luminance scenes, the end result being some minor shadow differences no one will notice in print.

I wouldn't blame you for wanting that advantage and buying an Exmor body. I don't blame you for wanting Canon to change their ADC architecture. I just don't think the difference is nearly as great as you believe.

Hand me a Canon, or a Nikon, or a Sony, and tell me I need to photograph a sunset landscape or an interior with windows showing the outside world. I will accomplish it and produce a high quality print regardless of the camera.

250
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:06:21 AM »
29 pages now...

Any body actually making prints that can demonstrate the "obsolescence" of Canon?
I can agree that on screen various bodies will show some differences but I have not seen prints from anyone where I could say "Ahhh, clearly this fellow used a (insert favorite hot camera here).

 ;D

Nope. 29 pages and not one single example of a real world photo under real world exposure conditions where the difference would matter in a large print.

251
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:04:51 AM »
It's problematic with the A7 due to camera shake from the shutter. It lacks an electronic first curtain, and long focal lengths exacerbate the problem for obvious reasons.

The A7 does have EFC, and shutter shake issues with the A7R are greatly exaggerated.

Besides, are we now shooting HDR landscapes with a 600mm in the narrow shutter speed range that might cause a problem?  ::)

252
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 08:21:53 PM »
You keep saying "arbitrarily" selected noise thresholds. It isn't arbitrary. It's very specific.

The Imatest "quality" DR measurements (low/med/medhigh/high) have arbitrarily selected noise floors that someone thought represented "quality" points. That's why there are 4 reported values in addition to total measured DR.

Quote
It is the RMS of read noise,

Not what we're talking about. (And for the millionth time, cannot be simply converted into system DR.)

Quote
On the other hand...using ACR/LR to perform conversions, when the underlying algorithms used in that product have changed, often considerably, over the years and countless minor version releases, not to mention the fact that the algorithms are black box, leads to highly suspect, and highly arbitrary, results.

Have you shot a step wedge and tried to use NR to make black and white steps gray yet?

No?

Please go try  ;D

Quote
How is a DXO Screen DR measure any different than a "system" measurement done by IR?

http://www.stouffer.net/TransPage.htm

T4110

Buy. Shoot. Learn.

253
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 07:46:12 PM »
...
For tripod landscapes I can't see any disadvantage to an A7 or A7R. AF speed doesn't matter. EVF lets you judge exposure/histogram before shooting. Tilt screen is useful if your tripod is down low. What's the problem?
...

Hanging a big zoom lens on the front whilst tripod mounted is what the problem is.

A large lens will typically have its own tripod ring and foot. The EF adapters I've looked at also have a tripod foot so that the adapter bears the lens weight (for lenses too small to warrant a tripod ring).

How could you not know this? Hmmm...This is hilarious and reads like someone who has never actually taken a photograph. Do you actually go out and take any landscape photographs or are you just an Internet arm chair expert?  ::)

254
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 07:39:37 PM »
It's interesting that you keep going to IR as being the gods of testing and yet always fail to quote this part of the final remark: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better. "  ;)

It's interesting that you still don't understand the difference between total dynamic range and dynamic range to arbitrarily selected noise thresholds.

Quote
And as for IR being sooo much more reliable and well defined than DxO and how can IR get so many stops more DR and the others are obviously wrong, etc. you always fail to quote : "As always, it's worth noting here is that ACR's default noise reduction settings reduced overall noise somewhat "  I.E. they do a potentially randomly manipulated by ACR test that involves all sorts of NR.

It's also interesting that you choose to lie and misrepresent to try and make your case.

A) NR does not affect total DR, though it does impact latitude. Likewise it would impact DR measurements which used an arbitrarily high noise threshold or "quality."

B) ACR's default NR settings are mild and fixed. They are not random nor "all sorts of."

C) ALL tested cameras have default ACR settings.

D) DxO is not testing system DR, but sensel SNR. There is no simple or direct conversion of sensel SNR to system DR. If DxO measured film "sensels" or grain they would report a DR of <1 stop. Yet a piece of Portra film held 12-13 stops and with proper development some B&W films can hit 16-18.

Quote
You always use extravagant talk about minor high ISO gains, but then use the most radically minimizing talk about low ISO differences.

No idea what you're even talking about.

255
I also still shoot film :)

Film...???

Was that something they used before Exmor?  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 58