September 22, 2014, 10:19:37 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 ... 49
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 09, 2014, 06:08:36 AM »
Yeah it's perplexing. The 50D may be as noisy as the 7D, but it lacks the waxy AA filter that just smears details on the 7D.

LOL! Google "Comparometer." Pick the 50D and 7D. Click the ISO 100 test scene with the fabric and the bottles, etc. Pay careful attention to which one looks "waxy."

In fairness this is about the JPEG engines. The 7D has the better JPEG engine, and both cameras are capable of higher IQ in ACR. But it's the 50D that was "waxy" in JPEG. The AA filter isn't an issue with either body.

It's the combination of inconsistent focus (burst mode in AI Servo and/or AF single point even on static subjects),

If you experienced poor AF you should have returned the body for repair work/calibration.

drab colors

It's digital. You decide the colors.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 09, 2014, 05:45:15 AM »
First of all, read my post first- I said both 5D (FF) and 50D (APS-C) that I have used appeared less noisy than my 7D. So it has nothing to do with confirmation bias.

First of all, read my post first - I did not say your opinion was from confirmation bias. My suggested theory is that you don't know how to size/compare properly. (And having three cameras in the mix would not preclude confirmation bias.)

Was my 7D out of spec? I think not- I have heard of similar noise issues from many people.

Noise issues which don't show up in scientific tests? I guess Canon sent the special noise free 7D's to the reviewers.

Secondly, your first guess is wrong- I don't pixel peep when looking for noise. When I say, ISO xxx was unacceptable it means I looked at it full screen on my 24" monitor and it looked bad. That's a pretty low bar, wouldn't you say?

As a testing methodology yes, that is very low bar. Your software, scaling algorithm, monitor, monitor settings, all affect the final result. For example: at the right scaling in Apple Preview on a MacBook (non-Retina) you can make a FF 5D3 or D600 look noisy at base ISO because the scaling mechanism screws up.

Finally, please don't go mentioning "scientifically reproducible tests" without citing them.

Pretty much every review on Earth noted that the 7D was cleaner then the 50D, and at 3200 the 5D has visibly more chroma noise (though I think it's visibly even and tests a bit better on luminance). Go review the Dave Box tests at Imaging Resource.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 05, 2014, 06:07:21 AM »
+1. My 7D was worse on ISO 640 and above than my 5Dc is at ISO 1600. I haven't done any comparisons, but I think my 50D might be cleaner in high ISOs than my 7D.

And the fact that scientifically reproducible tests say you're wrong do not impact your opinion one bit, eh?

It's a good guess your opinion was formed by zooming straight to 100% which means 18 MP magnified > 15 MP magnified > 12 MP.

Another good guess is that if you had to pick from unlabeled screen or print views...equal in would pick the 5Dc image as the noisy one that "must be the 7D."

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:24:39 PM »
Wow.  Here we have one person criticizing a camera sensor for well known shortcomings, and another person declaring that such criticism is evidence of a miserable existence.

He may have been harsh, but his point stands. The web is loaded with clean, sharp, detailed 7D images with gorgeous color. If you are not producing work with similar IQ it is not the camera model. Either you have a faulty unit or your technique is flawed, and it's usually the latter.

You mention "well known shortcomings" but I could point to numerous professional reviews where the reviewers said the same thing I've always said: at ISO 100-800 there is very little difference vs. FF. They didn't notice any horrible noise. The "7D is noisy!" meme gets annoying to those who don't seem to have any problem producing excellent images with it.

Now if we're talking high ISO...yes, the 7D is noisy and soft vs. the 5D2 and especially the 6D, 5D3, and 1DX. But so is pretty much every other crop sensor. Granted newer sensors are better, but still pale in comparison to the latest FF sensors at high ISO.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: August 02, 2014, 03:02:09 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

It's not "barely better" at high ISOs. That's where the surface area and therefore light gathering come into play. At ISO 6400, 12800, 25600 it is much, much better. I'm comfortable shooting FF 3 stops higher then APS-C. I won't shoot APS-C above 3200, but I will shoot FF above 3200.

But at ISO 400? Meh. Differences are insignificant because noise isn't an issue at those light levels for either size sensor.

There seems to be this meme that FF is always and forever better at all things, Amen. That's what Zack was ranting against. Where FF advantages come into play they are large. They just don't come into play all the time.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 01:13:31 PM »
2. That said, if I do scrutinize, it's not hard to tell the superiority of FF images over APS-C and M43,

Yeah it is actually. The problem with this debate is 99.9% of the people debating have never been forced to pick between unlabeled prints. Much like wine experts discover when they are blindfolded, our ability to "scrutinize" photos is not nearly what we believe it to be when labels are in front of us.

ISO 100-800 (probably throw in 1600 for Sony sensors)...all other factors being equal (MP; lens IQ) with optimal processing for're not going to identify the format between APS-C and FF even in big prints.

Above that...FF starts to walk away, and the difference is significant enough that you can't post process it away, and it's visible in large prints. FF is the low light king. But the difference is becoming less and less important as sensor tech improves and IS finds its way into more scenarios.

FF can of course achieve less DoF, though I honestly feel like APS-C is the sweet spot here. Moving at all will throw a normal/mild tele at f/1.4 out of focus on FF. And by moving at all I mean random quantum fluctuations seem to be sufficient to shift the plane of focus and ruin the shot. Even on APS-C I'm often stopping down to f/2 to make sure I have some DoF. One in focus eyelash is not appealing to me.

I will admit there are lenses which beg to be shot on FF (Canon's T/S and 24/35L's).

But that's about it. The differences are really not what they're often made out to be unless you need to shoot at really high ISOs or you can make use of the 36 MP from a D810 or A7R (so...really big prints). Or you like one focused eyelash surrounded by bokeh.

I still don't get all the fuss over Fuji's x APS-C sensors.

Neither do I. Their one Bayer model seems to have the same IQ but with slightly different color rendition that could be equalized in post pretty easily.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:34:53 AM »
If you are not going to judge by equivalence, that is, how to get the same images from different systems, what is the point of any comparison?

Once FF fans turn to "equivalence" arguments the debate has pretty much jumped the shark.

If you believe an f1.8 m4/3 is a fast lens then you are welcome to your opinion, it is no faster  and has no more low light or dof capabilities than an f3.6 lens on a ff camera, basically a kit zoom.

As far as exposure is concerned, an f/1.8 lens is an f/1.8 lens.

DoF cuts both ways. If you want razor thin DoF it's hard to beat FF with a fast prime. But you can just as easily find yourself stopping down FF for sufficient DoF and pushing up ISO where you could shoot wide open with crop, thereby negating the high ISO advantage.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:21:56 AM » will APS-C systems as soon as phones/tablet deliver similar IQ in a much smaller package and "at no extra cost"  and when FF cameras can be had for the same price as APS-C and mFT-sensored gear. Ups... we already got the latter ... OMD1 or XT1 or A7 .. not much difference pricewise and sizewise.
And Fuji-X APS-C lenses as expensive as Canon/Nikon/Sony FF lenses.

I think I've been hearing that crop was bound to disappear since the introduction of the original 5D.

Phones/tablets are not going to deliver any where near the same IQ unless and until there is a revolution in imaging sensor technology. If that happens then FF is going to be in as much trouble as crop.

As for FF at the same price as APS-C / m43, there may be some overlap between high end crop and FF, but FF on the whole is more expensive and will continue to be unless and until there is a revolution in sensor fabrication.

Crop out sells FF by a wide margin and will continue to do so.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:00:57 AM »
There's over 2 stops advantage from FF vs crop for pics.

Once you're at high ISO. There's not 2 stops at 100, or 400, or even 800. And for most uses (subject matter + viewing size) crop is perfectly fine to 3200 even if FF is starting to show it's advantage there.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: June 02, 2014, 12:56:32 AM »
So it's a card trick.

No, it's human nature for people to have strong beliefs about A vs. B even though they can't pick A from B in a double blind study. I've actually put unlabeled 20" prints in front of people only to watch them stumble in trying to guess sensor format. Have you?

That must be why I only reluctantly raised the ISO on my 7D past 800, but will go to ISO 6400 on my 1D X with little concern.

If you can't get good RAW files from a 7D at 1600 and 3200 then you're doing something wrong. That said, by 3200 I would certainly expect a large 1DX print to be discernible from a 7D print. At 800? Not unless you're doing something wrong.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS M Vanishes from Canon USA Web Site
« on: May 30, 2014, 05:14:28 PM »
It's mind boggling how brainwashed people are on FF being the god all-mighty form factor. I guess change is scary to a lot of people.

When it comes to sensors, bigger is better.  I guess physics is scary to some people.  ;)

Granted, smaller might be good enough, depending on the application/output.

People over play this card. With current sensors you're not going to see a difference until about ISO 3200. And that's if you print 20". FF is amazing in low light, but the majority of images are not produced there.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 22, 2014, 05:49:22 AM »
I don't apply NR to my images.

If you use ACR and do not explicitly reduce it to 0, you are using it. With DPP or in camera JPEG it doesn't matter if you choose the lowest setting, some is applied any way. You can get away with truly zero NR in low ISO images that are perfectly exposed, but if you're not taking advantage of it at higher ISOs then you are literally handicapping your output vs. cheaper and older sensors that are optimally post processed.

I can't help but feel that I'm missing something. If you were working with raw files from both cameras, wouldn't the 1DIV give you a cleaner image in the final result because the RAW image itself is cleaner to begin with?

Not necessarily because the relationship between NR and detail is not a simple linear one. If you apply X NR to a RAW file to achieve a certain noise and detail level, you may be able to apply X+Y NR to a more noisy RAW file to end up with the same result. Depends on the gap between sensors, the NR algorithms, the settings you feed those algorithms, and also the image itself.

Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

I was comparing the IR studio scene and looking at the entire scene.

Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue.

I'm sorry you didn't understand my post and still don't realize how pointless and irrelevant unprocessed gray patches are. In the real world making real images 70D IQ is indistinguishable from 1D4 IQ until very high ISOs where it's still fairly close. That's sufficient to answer the question posted by unfocused.

Unless, of course, unfocused will be primarily shooting patches in RAW and converting with NR completely off. In which case he should forget about the 7D2 and 1D4 and buy a Nikon or a Sony.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 20, 2014, 06:09:57 AM »
I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 19, 2014, 07:29:57 AM »
Page after page of theorizing mixed with your typical claims that "crop will never do it."

The 70D is the closest glimpse we have at a future 7D mkII. Looking at the Imaging Resource Comparometer I would say the 1D4 is still a bit better at ISO 6400. Though it doesn't appear to be a difference that would matter at the print sizes normally associated with ISO 6400.

ISO 3200...once you've equalized the viewing a wash. Sneezing while your RAW converter is running will make more of a difference than exists between these two sensors at ISO 3200.

I can't imagine the 7D mkII will have worse IQ then the 70D, so yes, I think it will "come close" to the 1D4 and in fact "match" it at ISO 3200 and below. Possibly even at 6400. Especially true if prints are more important to you then going blind studying 300% magnifications in PS.

EOS-M / Re: Canon EOS M3 in Q3 of 2014?
« on: April 14, 2014, 03:50:24 PM »
You should care: mirrorless is the future of Canon's camera business; more to the point, it's the future profit of Canon's camera business.

It's amazing how people keep saying things like this even though the mirrorless market has failed to materialize in the U.S. and Europe, and is still a side market in Japan.

And this is coming from someone who loves his EOS M, wants to see more EOS M bodies and lenses, and thinks mirrorless in general is underrated by the public.

The DSLR isn't going any where, and Canon's profits will continue to come from brisk Rebel sales.

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 49