August 01, 2014, 08:35:16 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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 30
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:43:37 PM »
I, for one, can't take DxOMark seriously or trust any of their numbers when they...

* Rank $40,000 medium format digital backs lower than consumer APS-C DSLRs.

* Report physically unachievable values for dynamic range (i.e. >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

* Report values for dynamic range that I know to be false from both personal experience and testing. (They rank the 10D, 20D, and 7D about the same. The 7D is a good 2 stops better.)

For all the critics of DxOMark critics, I would like to point out that no less a professional and respected figure than Michael Reichmann stopped using DxOMark because of the obvious errors he observed in their results.

All that said...I wish Canon would lower their prices  ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 09, 2012, 03:31:46 PM »
For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise?

Pressing the shutter button.

ROFL !!   :D :D :D

Were you not following the thread? He made that claim, then provided an example with absolutely no noise.

Why should us Canon customers accept less than stellar IQ...

I don't get anything less than stellar IQ from my Canon cameras. Perhaps you should take a course on digital photography at your local JC?  ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 09, 2012, 07:04:20 AM »
Did you notice that the Nikon D3200 scored an 81(the same as a 5DIII at roughly 4x times it's cost)?

Did you notice that the D3200 scored an 81, 3 points higher than a Hasselblad H3DII 50?

Do you know how stupid DxOMark looks for this? Do you know how stupid they look claiming the D3200 has better overall IQ and better DR?

Do you know how stupid people look when they cite DxOMark scores given the above?

You're telling me to trust a testing company that tests a Honda Civic and a Corvette ZR-1 and reports that the Civic is faster with more HP. Please...

While I don't take these sensor tests as the end all be all, I do think they give a decent idea of DR, ISO range, and overall sensor performance.

Say that after you've compared 24x36" prints from the D3200 and H3DII.

but at some point people should open their eyes to the fact that Nikon has basically dominated Canon for the past few releases.

Apparently they dominate $40,000 medium format systems as well  ::)

I recently sold my 5DC and 24-105 and bought a D700 and 24-70. The image quality is significantly better, the bokeh better, low light is 3x better, and the AF is literally night and day, not to mention the overall user experience(after becoming accustomed to the change,) is much better, it is absolutely incomparable.

You're seriously comparing a 2005 camera to a 2008 one, and an f/4 lens to an f/2.8 lens? (High ISO is about 1 stop better, btw.)

If you're happy with Canon that's great, but for the rest of the world, it's pretty obvious Nikon is killing them.

I wish Canon would introduce a 50 MP FF body for $1,000 with 20 stops of DR and perfectly clean ISO 25,600 images. Not so much because I would enjoy that camera, but because it would send the Nikon trolls back to their forums  :P

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 08, 2012, 10:03:16 PM »
Yes because DXO is the problem, not that Canon is processor-wise stagnant for more than half a decade.

Yes, a company whose testing methodology places APS-C cameras ahead of medium format digital backs is a problem. Have you ever compared prints from the two?

I mean DXO is for the clueless, no matter that their aps-c sensors are bottom leaders and actually getting outclassed by 4/3 cams, they're still better than any cameraphone out there.

Outclassed by 4/3 cams  ::)

Yes, it appears DxO is for the clueless.

EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 08, 2012, 08:13:36 PM »
canon crowd:
big MP is useless.

When the **** did the "Canon crowd" ever say this? Canon was the first to FF, one of the first to >20 MP, and most Canon users were disappointed that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with the D800.

both canon/Nikon are heading into 50+MP territory to improve on the abysmal image quality of low MP bodies like the 5DmkIII. the reason is simple: bayer pattern. more mp = less effects of the bayer mosaic.

"Abysmal"? LOL! Have you ever even touched a camera? FYI, the Bayer mosaic has never, ever impacted IQ to the degree claimed. And I've seen plenty of the foolish claims. First it was film guys claiming Bayer could never match three layer color film in the same format (happened around 12 MP for 35mm). Then it was the Foveon guys who couldn't distinguish between overall resolution and color detail...and exaggerated even the color detail advantage. Now you're trying the same nonsense but attaching it to sensor resolution.

I could never go back to using anything with less than 30MP. anything else is just a toy. once the canon crowd gets it, they'll never look back.

While I'm looking forward to >30 MP sensors, even I have to admit that they will make no real difference for images viewed on today's monitors or prints up to about 24, maybe 30".

You've just got to love the hyperbole in photographic equipment discussions...

EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:38:23 PM »
Maybe it's time to switch to Nikon or Sony...

No maybe about it. Canon sucks.  As we all know, the sensor is of paramount importance - the other aspects of camera performance, not to mention the lenses, are irrelevant.  TonyY, sell your piece-o-crap 5DII and your eight L lenses and switch.  Please.  Your repeated posts about Canon's exceptional inferiority will be sorely missed, but we'll all manage to get through, somehow.  ::)

 ;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

You know, Canon is so bad that nobody could in good conscious sell it used to move to Nikon or Sony. What to do then? I will accept the great burden of taking your inferior Canon equipment off your hands at no cost to you. Simply ship your equipment to me along with a receipt for the shipping costs, and I will PayPal you the shipping. Then you will be free to move to Nikon/Sony, conscious clear that you did not charge someone for your inferior Canon products.

I know, I know...somebody will have paid the shipping costs, and your inferior, noisy, narrow DR Canon products aren't even worth that! But don't feel bad, I'm more than willing to make the sacrifice, humble humanitarian that I am  ::)

Any takers?  8)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 650D Results on DxOMark
« on: October 08, 2012, 07:32:33 PM »
DxO probably ranks it higher than a Hasselblad medium format back, so...what are you complaining about?  ;D

DxO - the Mark of the Clueless.

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 08, 2012, 03:06:27 PM »
I´m not sure, whether all testing magazines get "normal" Cameras you can buy on the market. It is sometimes said, that Companies send specially adjusted Cameras to them. Maybe it is true.

If a "special adjustment" improves performance, why wouldn't they just make that adjustment to the entire production line???

But what I can say: In my fotoclub, more than a dozen of people own a 7D or an 60D. And we were frustrated how big the quality gap of the IQ is. Mine 60D has low noise, lower then the 60D of my friends. But my 7D is more noisy and has  low contrasting quality. There other Camerasare much better than mine.

Proof? And by proof I mean properly controlled and executed tests. You pixel peepers don't realize that a 1/3 stop variation in exposure, or a seemingly innocent change in post processing, can produce quite large differences in noise at 100%.

So, I think that Friedmud could be quite right, because his own camera is making not as good pictures as written on the online magazines.

He posted an example of a "bad" ISO 100 image in another thread and got pounced on. There is nothing wrong with the image at all, no noise to see what so ever. He was upset because the blue sky is not an artificially smooth sheet of plastic. (And to think, some people ADD noise/grain because they think their digital images are too smooth and plasticky!)

You just can't please some people...

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 08, 2012, 03:00:07 AM »
Yes, which is what is in the competition's camera.  A camera that has similar on paper attributes to the 5Dmk3 and less noise and more DR at low ISO and costs $1400 less.

While I believe the 5D3 should be priced lower, paper attributes can be misleading. I would put the 5D3's 1DX-derived AF against the D7000-derived AF on the D600 any day. That might not matter for a landscape photographer, but it does matter for the 5D3's target audience.

Negative.  A D600 is only $600 more than a 7D.  A 7D is still the right camera for a (possibly large) segment of users that want the AF system and the ability to use Canon telephotos.  But for someone entering that "advanced enthusiast" segment I truly believe that the D600 represents a better value.  It's not "SEVEN GRAND"... just $2100...

I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the two at low ISO. I'll grant that the D600 will be more forgiving of exposure errors, and will have a wider DR. But >90% of the time 30" landscape prints...or monitor desktops...from both will look identical.

Quite frankly I was expecting at least some difference given the 6 MP difference.

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 08, 2012, 02:52:28 AM »
Oh yeah...jrista: high five my friend. Excellent posts  8)

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 08, 2012, 02:51:16 AM »
Well - I just so happen to have a full res jpg that shows the phenomenon well:

What phenomenon? I don't see any noise in that photo. I have to zoom to 100% to detect a tiny unevenness to the pixels in the sky. jrista already covered the science behind this. I'm going to be more practical in my response. If this is what you're talking about...this "phenomenon" which would never be perceptible even in a 36" print...then it's eliminated with a single NR pass (Noise Ninja, 7D profile, auto settings except for turning down sharpening) without any loss of detail in the rest of the image.

I am NOT mismanaging anything.

You're just purposely getting yourself worked up over absolutely nothing.

And please don't come at me with "but it won't show up in a 24" print!".  I can clearly see the noise on my 30" monitor (2560x1600) at work where I use my photos as my desktop background...

I can't see anything wrong on my calibrated monitor. Sorry.

What are you trying to prove with that statement?  Why do you think ~ISO 400 noise is acceptable at 100?

Are you kidding me? A 3 year old crop sensor has the same measured noise at 100 that Nikon's just released $7,000 full frame flagship has at 400...and you think that's bad performance?

The point...which was quite that no one complains about the D4 at ISO 400, and no one hesitates to use it there. If the 7D were so awful at 100, then the D4 couldn't compete or sell at all since it would be awful by 400.

Ummm... that's exactly what I'm saying.  I've been linking to this review quite a bit but I'll do it again:

Don't bother. I'm not going to hold that review higher than DPReview or IR reviews. I don't see the controlled conditions that are necessary to properly evaluate this.

I went over to the Imaging Resource and compared the Still Life scene for the 7D at ISO 100 and tried to find the ISO setting for the D600 that most closely matched.  To me, it was in-between 400 and 800... just like I said a bit ago.

This is the most ridiculous thing you've said. I can't find any difference in noise between them at 100. In both images the only texture in the shadow by the cup is the paint on the wall. I can't find noise any where.

What is wrong with your monitor?

This is a systemic problem with Canon.  They simply do not care about LOW ISO performance.

Says who? An ISO hypochondriac?

Really?  The 7D was introduced in mid 2009.  That exact same sensor has also been used in:

2010: 550D and 60D
2011: 600D
2012: 650D and 60Da (with slightly different filtering)

How is that not "recycling and selling of old tech"?

And Nikon is still using the D7000 sensor. These things cost quite a bit to design and fabricate. They aren't changed every 6 months by anyone in the industry.

The 1DX sensor is brand new, and the 5D3 sensor is upgraded. There's rumors of a new 46 MP sensor, and we will soon see a new APS-C sensor. Canon's not sitting still.

1.  If this is really THE problem and Canon really cared they would license that patent from Sony.

No, they wouldn't. It all depends on what Sony wants in exchange.

2.  If this is really the problem and Canon really cared they would have put the R&D effort in and come up with the advancement first.

Who told you that money always means a company will innovate first? In what fantasy world does this happen?

3.  Why, in 3 years has Canon not come up with a better idea?

Because there are only so many ways to read data off a chip.

Also, I love how you first say "there is no problem" and then simultaneously blame a Sony patent for the problem.  You can't have it both ways.  Do Canon sensors have more noise or not?

I can have it both ways. They have more noise at high ISO in many (not all) cases, but it's not so much more as to be a problem.

Apologist at work.

Hypochondriac at work. I'm sorry, but I've personally known people like you, and I don't have a high tolerance for this. I know a guy that would find a reason to complain if you gave him a brand new Corvette ZR-1. I hate that nonsense. You're looking for a problem that's not there because somebody told you a bigger chip was better. Since you will find a problem whether it's there or not...go buy a bigger chip and enjoy it. But don't lecture the rest of us on IQ.

EOS Bodies / Re: Who said Canon cameras suck?!?
« on: October 07, 2012, 09:44:22 PM »
Personally, I love everything about my 7D... EXCEPT the image quality for the price I paid.  I don't feel like the IQ was worth $1,500.  Everything else about the camera _almost_ makes up for it... but when I get home from a few weeks in England (like I recently did) and load up my photos for the first time... I sigh a bit when I see all the noise (even at ISO100!)...

For all the people who claim to see noise from 7D files at ISO 100: What the **** are you doing to get that noise? Seriously. I don't see it in my shots. I don't see it in review site shots. And it's certainly not backed up by DPReview's noise graphs.

Are you consistently underexposing by 4 stops or something? Are you just completely mismanaging your RAW converter settings? What?

According to the DPReview noise graphs the 7D at 100 is as clean or cleaner than a D4 at 400. So are you going to tell me that Nikon's full frame, low light, professional sports flagship at 400 is noisy? Disappointing? Not worth the money? The RAW graphs pretty much overlap for the 7D and 5D3 at 100. I suppose a 5D3 is noisy and not worth the money to?

It's not that big of a difference in price and even though the sensor tech is older, Canon is still putting it in brand new cameras and obviously believes that there is nothing wrong with it..."

Canon is not recycling and selling you old tech. They are not sitting on their rear ends. But Sony has a patent on how they read data off the sensor, and Canon cannot work around that patent at this time. From what I've read, Canon actually has superior tech across other aspects of the sensor, i.e. if the patent didn't exist they would have less total noise.

Then I see reviews where the 5Dmk3 is basically on-par with the D600 in terms of IQ (some tests showing D600 is better some showing 5Dmk3 is better)... but there is a _$1400_ price premium on the 5Dmk3!

But it can't be. The noise values are practically the same with a 7D at 100. So it must just be a horrible camera  ::)

How did anyone ever make photographs with a 1Ds? Or the original 5D?

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 07, 2012, 06:52:21 PM »
I've owned a 7D for over a year and just rented a D600 and I can tell you that the difference is definitely more pronounced than that... especially at lower ISO.

With all due properly executed test samples for all to review, or don't bother making the claim. Identical scenes with identical exposure by professional testing sites simply do not show the differences you claim.

That said...personal use will have some variance vs. professional testing because of exposure variance. The 7D is not very tolerant of underexposure, and I'll be the first to say if this concerns you then go FF. Also, the technique to get the most out of a crop sensor is different from that of a full frame one. (Actually the processing steps are the same, but the values at each step can be very different.)

That is possibly true but it doesn't mean much.  I could make a 24" print from my old XSi that would probably look pretty damn close to a 5D3 (if I managed to get the exposure and everything nailed and did a bit of postprocessing work to heighten the contrast and DR). 

Less fine detail would give it away, at least for landscape prints. Though the difference still wouldn't be as great as many would expect.

I can't stand it when people say "but you don't print larger than X!".  Going by that standard we should all still be at 10mp like Mr. Rockwell advocates. 

99.9% of images never see that size. I don't advocate sticking to 10 MP because of that, but it's also silly to get worked up over differences that can only be seen at 100% in PS.

I don't do a lot of high ISO shooting so I can't comment on that.  Go look at other reviews though... like this one from Gizmodo that compares it directly to a 5dmk3:

I give more weight to IR and DPReview because of the precision of their testing and because I can obtain and process the files myself. What too many people over look is that even tiny variations in exposure and settings can make very large differences in 100% views.

But Canon seems to believe that it can keep jacking up prices and we'll keep paying them.  I, for one, am not sticking around to see what happens next.

That's a fair assessment. I really, really like Canon's lens library and have a significant investment there, so I'll see what the next year or two brings. (I also hate Nikon ergonomics, but I could adapt.) But I'm much more frustrated with their pricing than their products.

EOS Bodies / Re: Looks like the 6D may not be so bad after all
« on: October 07, 2012, 04:35:49 PM »
though the photo quality is awesome.

Please never post Nikon iso comparison shots on a Canon site again, Nkon's iso1600=iso100 and Nikon's iso3200 equaling Canon's aps-c iso100 will increase suicide rates of Canon owners so much there won't be people left to buy the 6d. Not that there would be many to begin with.


Looking over the Imaging Resource test images, the D600 at 3200 looks a lot like the 7D at 1600. There's greater separation at 3200 and 6400...just like with 7D/5D comparisons...but no great difference in any respect at lower ISOs...also just like 7D/5D comparisons. I can confidently say that I could make two 24" ISO 400 prints from the 7D and the D600 and you would never know which was which.

And the 5D3 looks better at 6400 than the D600 at 3200. That surprised me, but it's a pretty clear difference in favor of the 5D3.

The small edge that Sony made sensors generally have in shadow and high ISO noise has been blown way out of proportion by Nikon fans and turned into an online myth. Much like how FF fans will swear on their mother's lives that there is a huge...just HUGE...difference in IQ against crop sensors even though they can never confidently pick between unlabeled samples and prints.

It's human nature I guess.

As to the 6D...the problem is that it has been stripped down way too much for the price. The 5D3 is a great camera, but should be priced between the D600 and D800, closer to the D600, but a bit more. The 6D should be priced well below the D600, and even then should not have been stripped down like it was. And I fear Canon's 46 MP beast will be sold at a beast of a price, more than the 1Dx.

Part of the reason I went with Canon a decade ago is because Nikon stripped down their lower end bodies to the bone, thought way too much of themselves, and priced accordingly. Now Canon seems to have that attitude, while Nikon wants to be cut throat competitive. I don't like what I'm seeing in terms of Canon pricing for a given feature set.

EOS Bodies / Re: 46mp sensor useless for landscape?
« on: October 07, 2012, 04:02:39 PM »
I wouldn't necessarily say that.  Go read about the lengths D800E users have to go to in order to get all the resolution out of their sensors.  You have to use the _very_ best glass and hit the perfect f/stop with the perfect focusing (hyperfocal generally).  It is already getting quite fiddly to feed 36mp... if Canon is going to do 46mp things are definitely going to get interesting.

I don't consider a 7D that difficult and it has a higher pixel pitch than the D800. There are plenty of lenses that can provide 46 MP of detail FF (18 MP crop).

Diffraction is not the hard, fast limit people think it is. There's a gradual loss of detail contrast. That's something people don't understand when discussing diffraction or lens testing. They will, for example, read that a lens "only" provides XY lpmm at 50% MTF, or that you can "only" achieve XY lpmm at Z aperture, and assume no sensor with smaller pixels can benefit. What they don't realize is that the lens or aperture setting can still saturate any sensor at 20% MTF. And in our digital world, PS can bring back much of the lost detail contrast.

You run into similar nonsense comparing FF and APS-C sensors, and especially comparing lens resolution on the two formats because of the way the major sites compute the resolution numbers.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 30