January 26, 2015, 01:37:03 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 ... 57
241
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.

242
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.

243
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.

244
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.

245
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?  ::)

246
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.

247
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?  ::)

248
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.

249
I also still shoot film :)

Film...???

Was that something they used before Exmor?  ;D

250
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:37:58 PM »
Neuroanatomist wins the prize for best illustration.   ;D

Almost. I pushed the image 9,001 stops and there was shadow noise in the black lettering. He only gets second place because the image wasn't produced with Exmor  ;D

251
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 12:36:02 PM »
You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market.

I never said that. I said it had more then the 7D.

So you're saying he TWISTED your words?   :o

Nah...he photographed that particular post with a 5D3, underexposed it for a DR test, and when he pushed the shadows the noise obscured part of what I wrote  ;D

DARN YOU CANON! DARN YOU AND YOUR SHADOW NOISE!!!

252
EOS Bodies / Re: The day of the anti-climatic announcement
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:41:10 AM »
Isn't photokina still around 2 weeks away?

NDAs supposedly expire on Sept 5. Can't wait to find out what the actual specs are, though I doubt we will have any idea regarding sensor performance for a couple weeks after the announcement (at least). We need the standard suit of test scenes from various reviewers for that.

I would like to see an Exmor like sensor just to put an end to those threads  :P

But I'm very curious to see what the price is going to be. If it's in the stratosphere I'm not going to be interested in replacing my current 7D for sports. If it's priced similar to the original upon its release, then 65 point AF / 10 fps...if those are the specs...could certainly tempt me.

253
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:38:03 AM »
I think all jrista wants is the DR of the Sony sensors in Canon bodies, because the Sony bodies have a wealth of disadvantages that far outweigh the sensor (IMO at least).  You can't take a picture with just a sensor, and Sony is inferior with nearly all of those other aspects of the camera/lens.  If Canon incorporates an improved sensor in a future EOS camera, it would be the best of both worlds.

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? Durability? The Sony's are weather sealed, though I would trust a 7D or 5D3 to take more abuse and keep going. Battery life sucks but those are fairly easy to carry.

I don't see a "wealth of disadvantages" either. A7 is smaller/lighter for street. EVF with peaking is great for MF lenses. It's not a sports/action camera. No question you would grab a DSLR for that. Despite mirrorless vendors claiming every other week that they have the "fastest AF ever" they are not up to DSLR standards. Not the 7D, 5D3, or any where near the 1DX / D4.

I could pick up and shoot either comfortably for most situations. Obviously Canon wins on AF. But if DR was driving me as nuts on landscapes as it seems to be driving jrista, I would order an A7R in a heart beat.

254
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 09:30:27 AM »
You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market.

I never said that. I said it had more then the 7D.

Quote
I don't think anyone else here agrees with you on that point, and certainly no one anywhere else on the net, reviewers or forum goers, would agree with you either.

Imaging Resource Imatest results for 70D in ACR: 13 stops total DR
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-70d/canon-70dA5.HTM

Imaging Resource Imatest results for 7D in ACR: 11.5 stops total DR
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E7D/E7DIMATEST.HTM

 ::)

Quote
I think you've twisted Photographic DR into something that handily "proves" (in your own mind) that Canon is right up there with their competitors, when that is the farthest thing from the truth.

I think I've said...repeatedly...that Exmor sensors have a bit more DR and noticeably more shadow latitude and that this sometimes matters. Just not all the time, and not to the degree you believe.

I think I've also...repeatedly...documented that I'm using the standard definition that's in every work on the subject dating back to Adam's formulation of the zone system.

Quote
I'm just...ticked off and frustrated.

But not enough to buy something to solve it  ::)

Quote
Canon's core technology hasn't changed in years.

Then write letters to Canon USA and Canon Japan. Print and mail them. I'm of the opinion...perhaps false...that printed letters in these situations get more attention then emails and web forms.

255
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 02, 2014, 02:58:25 AM »
I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.

You'll never buy a camera that's relatively cheap ($1,300 for the A7), can use your lenses, and solves the problem which you have spent countless hours making...hundreds?...thousands?...of posts about because of a file format that maybe, on rare occasion, might result in an artifact, even though otherwise the camera completely eliminates the noise and artifacts you're so upset about???

I'm done...I'm out...no more SoNikonSuperMegaDR threads. I can't help these people. They need therapists, not sensors.

Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 57