August 02, 2014, 03:50:50 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 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30
241
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  ::)

242
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?

243
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.

244
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.

245
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.

246
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.

247
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.

248
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?

249
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?

250
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:44:40 PM »
Nope.
In JPG Canon claims a lot

Yes. My assertion is not based on Canon's claims, but on comparing literally hundreds of frames chosen for use out of thousands of frames fired. I see the same thing comparing single frame landscapes.

RAW saw a good 2 stop improvement. HTP brought a similar improvement to JPEG.

It has been claimed in this thread that Canon users are ignoring/denying that Exmor sensors have wider DR. Here you are denying that Canon has made any improvements in 8 years when they most certainly have.

251
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:39:16 PM »
Honestley the pictures you have seen do not need a lot of DR when the purpose is press but Dynamic range may be needed for annual reports, glossy magazines, etc and you have  not a clue what the benfits of large DR and exposure latitude are -do you and I have now been showing that  a number of times


You haven't shown anything. Please post an example of a photograph that can be taken with an Exmor sensor but not a Canon sensor.

Better yet, check out the Galen Rowell archives (http://www.mountainlight.com/). He produced that body of work with films that had 3-5 stops lower DR then a modern Canon DSLR.

Looks like he got his exposure right  ;D

252
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 05:34:52 PM »
And yes Im intresting to discuss why Canon are sleeping regarding DR , they have not improved that much since 2004

I've shot surfing...where you cannot blend multiple frames...on Canon DSLRs since 2004. Canon DR has improved by at least 2 stops over that time period.

253
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 03:55:25 PM »
read earlier answer, you must get your exposure" more right because of inferior DR and exposure latitude in Canon"
try to understand the difference
and if you expose them "right" (same parameters) you have 14 stops DR in Nikon d800 and about 11,5 stops in Canon , not including pattern noise/banding

Yep. Nikon has perfect ADCs with perfect performance and efficiency that yield data right up to their rated bit depth, something not seen any where else in the industry, not even in components for NASA and the Defense Department  ::)

Mikael - go to Nikon. Please.

254
EOS Bodies / Re: DxOMark Sensor Performance: Nikon vs. Canon
« on: October 16, 2012, 03:30:23 PM »
What is the freaking big deal with just admitting Exmor sensors have more DR and that it can be useful both save one of messed up shots and, much more often, to allow you to expand your photographic possibilities, or even to simply save time in post processing at times and drop it all?

Without sorting through this entire mess of a thread...

* Exmor sensors do have more DR, and it can be useful.

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

* Canon sensors are not as limited as they are claimed to be by Exmor fans.

* The impact on one's photography is simply not as great as claimed by Exmor fans.

* The number of posts on this topic have far exceeded reason.

Canon users underexpose and then lift shadows all the time. I've done this with countless Canon RAW files. In ACR (Photoshop CS4) I am not limited by noise until about 60-70 on the Fill Light slider. With an Exmor sensor I could take that slider to 100. It would be nice. But it's not worth 20 page threads.

In terms of DR and impact on my photography, getting an 8 fps camera (my first 7D) had a greater impact on my shooting than an Exmor sensor would. Before that I could not easily hand hold 3 AEB frames for exposure blending / HDR. Now I regularly do this and AEB is on my user menu. When I do this I obtain greater DR then you could hope to achieve with a single Exmor frame. Which is good, because the scenes I use it with have a greater DR then an Exmor sensor could achieve in one frame. I don't know where the exact cut off is in terms of shooting speed and ability to hand hold for 3 identical frames, but I could never do it consistently before the 7D.

Do you see any 20 page threads from me about this technique? Do you see me constantly telling people with slower cameras that their cameras are trash? Do you see me berating Nikon because they can't achieve 8 fps, outside of their super expensive pro sports body, without battery grips and compromised bit depth? Do I flood the forum with comments about how Nikon users should not tolerate their crummy drive motors, crummy 12-bit limitations in high speed shooting, or Nikon's laziness in allowing Canon to out fps them?

No. And do you know why you don't see page after page of this from me?

Because it would be ridiculous.

So is this Exmor nonsense. Right now Sony sensors have lower read noise and Sony has a patent on the technique. It results in a little bit more DR. The advantage will be there until Canon works around the patent or licenses it. Or possibly until other advances in sensor fabrication render the point moot. How much more needs to be said about it?

Quote
Why do so many have to make up lies about DxO?

Nobody is "making up lies" about DxO. DxO's methodology is flawed. So is their presentation. They publish IQ scores all over the place, but tuck away the note that says you can't compare scores between sensors of different resolutions. Then they produced normalized scores with obviously flawed normalization (i.e. >14 stops DR from a 14-bit pipeline).

Quote
Would you rather we all deny it and praise Canon and tell Canon we don't care since it doesn't matter and then have Canon be like hey why bother? Or would you rather the 5D4 maybe has the better low ISO DR???

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.

Quote
But it still isn't hard for me to hit situations where I am like man if it only it had exmor low ISO performance, man, man, man.

Your imagination is always greater than the real difference. I see this all the time in photography. People are always saying "man if I only had X or Y", not realizing they can do whatever they want with what they already have.

Quote
I just hope I don't and you are not helping us any (or helping to educate anyone when you constantly give out mixed-up misleading information on normalization).

What makes you think it's other people giving out "misleading information"?

255
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS-1D X DXOMark Sensor Scores
« on: October 16, 2012, 10:02:01 AM »
Maybe you should learn to be more of a geek before you start calling names while at the same time getting everything you are talking about wrong....

Well...I see from the down sampled 4x5 Velvia scan you attached that I was wrong.

OH WAIT. You didn't attach one  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 30