December 20, 2014, 01:43:30 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 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 57
256
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:26:25 AM »
Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19",

BRB...have to tear up all my 17x22" portfolios  ;D

Quote
they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall.

I know a lunar landing conspiracy theorist who is more reasonable.

257
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:24:26 AM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........

 ;D

If the 5D4 doesn't have 25 stops of noise free DR...GAME OVER MAN. GAME. OVER.

258
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:49:52 AM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

259
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:47:10 AM »
I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.

Trimming most of your post because...how on Earth do you even find time to write that much? And that's coming from someone who writes too much on forums!  :o

All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending two frames.

For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.

I can only guess because I've never been out shooting with you to observe what you're doing. But you talk as if every landscape you do has horrendous shadow noise. If that's happening then you need to adjust your shooting and processing.

You've built up in your mind how much better an Exmor sensor would be, how it would revolutionize your workflow. It's better, but it's not going to revolutionize your workflow or eliminate HDR/GND. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a D810 or a Sony A7 series if you want one. Just don't build up Exmor so high in your mind that you buy one and end up complaining on their boards.

Quote
So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.

I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.

260
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 02:20:03 AM »
Quote
Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

I give up trying to apply logic in the face of such statements.

You're not applying logic. Your understanding of this is simply not correct therefore your attempt to "convert" what you see on the screen into a "percentage of lost tones" is nonsense.

Quote
The DR of the SCENE is minimal, a point and shoot would see it all, given the there is no black OR white in the whole photo.

You have no clue what the DR of the scene was because you didn't include a step wedge nor document a series of spot meter readings. Which is why your statement above is nonsense.

261
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:30:44 PM »
I'm not a big fan of this test.  Since each camera might handle differently, I'd want to identical framing and optimal exposure for some bright element of each, then we'd look at the shadows.  My question is not how each looks at the same exposure, but which scenes can/can't be captured with reasonable use of each.  If one handles highlights better, why is it wrong to increase exposure to make use of that?  Setting equal exposure doesn't seem like a valid test to me.

You don't think how they look at the same exposure is a valid test? Wow.

If one has more highlight range then a "best possible" test would exploit that. That said, I'm not sure to what degree this is the case if at all. Just pointing out that it is something to consider.

Quote
Expose to the right, with less dynamic range to start with? Why should you even have to?

The dynamic range in your test is nearly identical. The exposure latitude is what's different. And ETTR is for every sensor, Exmor included. Having less read noise and therefore better shadows doesn't eliminate the fact that the last few bits have almost no tonal separation if you push them hard enough, an inherent fact of linear ADCs. With digital you want your exposure to the right without clipping highlights if you are going to maximize DR and latitude in post. (If you're not then none of this matters.)

Quote
When a Camera is not able to differentiate noise from detail in the lower 3rd of the tonal range, then no test is going to make it shine.

This is not an accurate evaluation or statement. If the noise were that bad you wouldn't have been able to push the Canon RAW 3 stops at all.

262
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:22:23 PM »
I do know wedding togs that will get that D3s out when the lights go down though, even when they've got a D4 or a D800.

I know one who gave his D3s away after the D4 came out.

Quote
As for the D3s been a stop behind the Mk3, that does not fit with my experience of a Mk3.

Professional tests that control for all variables show otherwise.

263
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:16:35 PM »
The angst is that while noise removal is ok, that doesn't bring back your detail that the sensor never saw in the first place.

The pattern you see in the box is inconsequential...when it survives at all...at anything less then pixel peeping. I also question whether it has anything at all to do with noise or is simply a result of 36 v 22 MP. When pixel peeping you will see tiny pattern and texture differences between the two. It's just never worth thinking about at <100%.

Quote
My issue was how Canon renders skin as it falls into shadow. It struggles with shadowed skin so much, and you don't want green blotches in skin.

I don't think I've ever seen green blotches in skin, even when lifting shadow detail 2-3 stops. But if I did, I would give the scene more exposure the next time around.

When I review work online or in print, I see a difference between old DSLRs (i.e. 10D / 20D) and modern DSLRs. I see a difference between cheap glass and really good glass. I see a difference between P&S sensors and m43 or larger sensors. I see a difference between people who know how to use HDR and GND filters, and those that don't use them at all.

I don't see a difference between D800 and 5D3 shots, or Sonikon/Canon in general.

If the differences ever become so great that they're apparent in real life photographs made for art and not pixel peeping, then I'll be one of the people arguing that Canon should catch up or buy Sony sensors. Until then...

264
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:38:31 AM »
The thing that puzzles me, is that Canon's aren't the best at hi ISO either.

Right now, the A7s, the D4s, and even the 2009 D3s are pretty much the best hi ISO cameras out there.

The D3s is more then a stop behind the 5D3, and that's before scaling the 5D3 image down to match. 1DX and D4s are a wash at high ISO. The A7s is a solid stop ahead of other current FF sensors, Canon or Nikon.

Quote
I know quoting DXO is a crucifiable offence round here, but their first Canon in the hi ISO chart is the 1DX at number 10.

Once again, DxO is at odds with observable reality. Not just in terms of where the 1DX ranks, but on the Nikon rankings as well. The D4s is without question ahead of the D3s.

Sad that they get all these great cameras to test and never actually photograph the real world. If they did they might fix their tests  ;D

265
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 08:26:44 AM »
Jon, for what it's worth, here's the first quick and dirty test I did when my D800 arrived, alongside my Mk3.

Thank you for providing these. They won't settle any arguments about HDR landscapes, but it's something.

Clearly the D800 has less shadow and red channel noise. But once again I'm stuck wondering why there's so much angst over this. Play with the NR sliders in ACR and/or add some NR in post and they're not that different. Though I will say in this case that the shadow gradation is better on Nikon and would probably appear so in print side by side after NR.

I will also make the point that the dynamic range is essentially the same between the two (as I would expect), though the D800 has more shadow latitude thanks to the lack of noise and smoother gradation (i.e. no banding).

Do I wish Canon would improve to this level? Of course. Do I think it's worth switching brands? No, though I wouldn't give anyone grief on FB for doing so.

266
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 01:24:08 AM »
I've seen these pushed at me numerous times on CR, and at others as a Canon defence, so you can't have seen the many I've seen.

Neuro has pushed both extensively for example.

Allow me to rephrase...I have never seen a half dozen threads about Canon T/S lenses on a Nikon site at one time.

267
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:41:18 AM »
There are many similar comments that can be made for 12800 ISO, TS17mm and other areas where Canon excel and where Canon users preach constantly.

I have never, on any forum, seen Canon users push Canon's advantages this hard. Ever.

Maybe Canon users are just happier people  ;D

268
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:39:47 AM »
Indeed.  The 7D was a top seller for years, leading to a long upgrade cycle.  The 100-400L remains popular, and despite unfortunately frequent false rumors, it's likely that Canon feels little pressure to replace it.

It's still competitive. At the short end Nikon's 80-400 AF-S is sharper, but at the long end the Canon is sharper. The worst thing about the Canon is the push/pull zoom.

In a sense Nikon "just caught up" to the Canon version in 2013. Are Nikon lenses as a whole two generations behind Canon?  ;)

269
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:32:57 AM »
To be fair, I think jrista posted two reasonable examples: one was the room interior with bright window, and the other was a stream with bright sky.

No one has posted a reasonable example. That would require both sensors shot so that all other factors are equal, and RAW files provided for everyone to evaluate. Since we do not have a 5D3 shot of the room nor a D800 shot of the stream we have no idea what the difference would actually be.

You, me, neuro, jrista, Keith...everyone here...none of us can accurately evaluate the luminance range of a scene by sight alone, nor the dynamic range of a RAW file, and compute in our brains how it might have looked on another camera. Not even close.

Absent that you get confirmation bias. Every Canon shot with a white sky or black shadow is due to 'Canon's crummy sensor.' Every Nikon shot with a good range from shadow to highlight is 'thanks to those amazing Exmor sensors.' Even if you could have swapped cameras and gotten the same results they are interpreted that way. Heck, in another thread we had jrista cruising 500px thinking obvious HDR images were single frame Exmor shots. Outside of this debate and the psychological biases it has introduced...one's frame of mind if you will...he would have never assumed some of those shots were anything but multiple frame HDRs.

We have plenty of words but no real examples save Fred Miranda's, and the difference there is simply not worth all these words.

I would love to put this to rest once and for all, but I either have to borrow a friend's D800 (which he's always using professionally) or buy a Sony A7 (which I'm planning but haven't done yet). But a half dozen threads on the same topic is pointless absent a series of "all other things equal" test shots. Real world test shots. Not black paper in a coal mine "I pushed this >5 stops and turned off all NR on the Canon and look at how much better Nikon is at 300%" nonsense.

Despite my clashes with jrista I would trust him to do this. His sunflower scene would have been a great test if he had only had a D800 to test. I suspect the noise would have been much better on the darkest frame, but the shadows would have been mud that deep. I could be wrong.

Quote
if you happen to be at one of these locations at that time of day, those two shots would benefit from the D8xx sensor.

jrista doesn't actually know this. Neither do you or I. You have to actually test both at the same scene. (Side note: based on what experience I do have processing/printing D800 RAW files I would guess there would be some benefit. I'm not convinced it would be visual, but simply less work in post. I can imagine in some cases that it would be visual, but I don't think it would ever be massive, i.e. you are still going to need and use GND filters and HDR.)

270
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 12:12:46 AM »
blah blah blah

and yeah great just you GO Keith! Keep up the good fight to help insure Canon lens lovers get stuck with inferior sensors for low ISO, you go!!!!

Do you have a controlled, side by side test that illustrates this inferiority in a real world scene viewed at normal sizes (i.e. 24" wide)?

Let us know when you're ready to post it.

Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 57