October 20, 2014, 06:24:49 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53
Lots, since it turns out that we get a lot of wind around here and so do many other places, water flows and forest scenes happen to just be about at the range that exmor DR can just handle with single shot.

I'm not sure I buy it...but if true then shoot an Exmor camera or load up Magic Lantern. Not sure what else to say. Posting about it here certainly won't push Canon to change their ADC arrangement.

It's not that uncommon, although not always the case, that for a forest scene to be such that if you expose to not clip the bright sunlit parts you can do that at f/6.3-f/11 at reasonable handheld speeds and often the brightness difference turns out to be such that the shadows would be serviceable enough with another nearing 3 stops more DR and that if you expose 3 more stops for an extra shot as required by Canon that can flip the shutter speeds into questionable zone.

It has been uncommon for me apparently. I can count on one hand the instances where I've faced this, and that was without IS.

All I know is that most of us who have talked about it a lot for years in the forums very much did first notice in real world work. I'm sure that is case for many others who post about. That said, I'm sure some of the chatter from infrequent posters on the ad thread on DPR and such might have heard about it from TN or FM or DxO.

Fair enough.

First, it's disingenuous to refer to as underexposing by 3 stops since by definition that means you leaving 3 stops free at the top and you well know that is not the case.

No, by definition that means middle gray is 3 stops below where it should be. You're doing that to extend your highlight range.

Second, it's perfectly fine if you just about never have to dig into the bottom depths of files. And it's fine to say that. What some others say is not so fine.

That's fair...but they say it over and over and over again  ;)

Meanwhile, for the words posted, there are precious few examples of that sliver between Canon's limit and HDR for every camera.

if you're shooting rocks, or anything else when the air is dead calm...  Rarely the case for most of us.

I think you guys are reading "exposure blend" and thinking "HDR." Again, when you manually blend exposures using a mask it's like a GND filter. There's no motion in the frames being blended. For motion to be an issue it would have to large enough and fast enough to cross your mask in the time the shots are taken.

I discovered this forum when I went looking for information on the horrible levels of shadow banding on my 7D and blue-sky banding my 5d2 exhibited.

I don't see shadow banding on the 7D until >3 stops.

Of course you can manual blend a lot, but that doesn't count as "easily circumvented" as speculated above.

I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.

How bad small movement is of course depends on the export/view size, but in my experience when doing a 2x bracket with there's simply double the chance that something moved or happened in the scene. I'm not much of a landscape photog, but I know this can happen in nature macro.

Are we all talking about the same thing? For movement to impact a manual blend the movement would have to cross the scene in a manner that makes mask creation difficult. There's no movement within the individual frames.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:15:40 PM »
Thank you, dtaylor, for that in-depth review of images. SOOC is good for SWMBO to post on FB, but I'm up for a bit of post to polish the product. High frame rate is not really that much of a requirement, so I would'nt miss the extra 4fps that the 7DII would bring. (I hope)
I really prefer natural light where-ever possible, so I suppose high ISO performance is probably more important to me than
I think. Particularly in theatres, where tungsten is my major challenge (although that is now being complicated by the trend to convert to LED, especially when there is a mix of the two (:-( ).
Still, it wouldn't be anywhere near as enjoyable if there weren't any challenges :-)

It's looking more and more like the 5DIII will be the way to go.

Thanks again to all of you who have responded to my plea for help.

Agree totally with your decision. IMHO it's literally high ISO vs. fps, and the 5D3 has decent fps to start. Given what you just said your answer is 5D3.

If you're open to refurbished, keep in mind the Canon loyalty program discount. You can get an old, used, no longer working Canon DSLR off eBay and net a big discount off a new DSLR.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 11, 2014, 04:13:10 PM »
I recommend a bit of caution when interpreting static test scenes like those from IR.  They keep lighting and aperture constant, while varying shutter speed and ISO.  In low light with longer shutter speeds, the relative impact of noise sources is different so the results may be slightly more applicable to fast action in decent light than to true low light.

In what scenario do you think this would matter, other then astro landscapes? (FF hands down for that.) Asking because I've never noticed a difference (past gen) until the shots got into several seconds.

Also, ISO noise isn't everything...

I didn't see any differences...after post...between the old 5D2 and 7D at lower ISOs. I don't expect any between the 5D3 and 7D2. Open to evidence I'm wrong. Again, this is after post. (SOOC FF is sharper and often has more local contrast.)

One thing to consider is that the 'crop factor' also applies to DoF for the same framing.  To get the DoF of an f/2.8 lens on FF, you need an f/1.8 lens on APS-C.  To get the DoF of an f/1.4 lens on FF, you need an f/0.9 lens on APS-C.

Good point.

A 3ev difference is in my experience often just the range you need to prevent clipped sky while retaining good shadow resolution.

Do you mean a +3ev shadow push in post? That's within Canon's range. Hitting the limit, you will move those NR sliders, but absolutely doable.

Do you mean 3ev difference between the cameras? There's not that much difference.

And the nature moves a lot, esp. if you look at 100% crop. If you doubt it, get out more :-> ... then you'll see it doesn't take heavy storms to make leaves and grass move noticeably. Are you watching closely ("The Prestige")?

Nature moves a lot...in <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?  ::)

Only relatively few shots like ocean horizon or mountain range horizon shots get helped by GND.

Manual blends cover the rest pretty well.

For forest stuff wind can be quite a problem with leafs and branches going all over or water moving like crazy or mists going crazy in post storm winds.

How often do you face this situation yet you would have to HDR on any camera? That's a point the "DRoners" keep missing. You guys treat the Exmor sensors as if they never require HDR, as if the shadow depth is unlimited. Nonsense. jrista's own example would have required HDR to be publishable.

How often are you shooting a scene with more luminance range then Canon can handle...but not more then Exmor can handle...with close up foliage...and with wind so heavy that HDR or blending is impossible? Seriously, how many shots per year are we talking here?

and occasionally they can patch hand-held (but not always so well as you'd like).

I regularly, confidently hand hold AEB 3 frame brackets. It's the C1 setting on my DSLR. I can even do so with the M though in fairness that is with an IS lens.

Although it's a bit rare to need it, sometimes for wildlife or sports you do hit HDR scenarios and multi-shots are utterly unworkable in those cases just about always (other than for stable perched bird).

That is exceedingly rare. I'm struggling to imagine a scenario where...again...you're out of bounds on the Canon sensor but still in bounds on the Exmor.

Not when that doesn't blend well because of shake or motion

I haven't had either prove to be a problem in practice.

or when the shadow exposure at 3 stops lower becomes too slow to handhold at lower ISO at f/6.3-f/13.

You find yourself confronted with scenes which are low light, yet you're not using a tripod or IS lens, and somehow these low light scenes also present a huge luminance range?  ???

(Side note: I actually have been in this situation once. But an IS lens would have helped more then an Exmor sensor.)

Where did he say that meant nobody could get a great photo out of a Canons sensor?

He has never said that, but he was...at the time...basically claiming that you could not get the same quality landscape shots out of Canon. Again, a quick Flickr search would have broken the confirmation bias spell.

But the thing is most people who complain about banding and DR, noticed it in their real world work before every reading anything about it or about other cameras so....

I'm not buying that. jrista...yeah, I think he noticed it long ago. But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review. (I respect the former, the latter not so much. Never the less they both make the same fundamental error.)

And there is also the psychology of some not be able to handle that something they bought is not the best at every single thing or that their team, I mean brand of use, can't win all games.

That might be at play here if even ONE Canon user had ever said that Canon is better at low ISO DR. But none of them have  ;)

For the record, Canon read noise SUCKS when you underexpose by more then 3ev and try to put the shadow tones back in post. I just never really have to do that.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D mk2 or 5D mk3
« on: October 11, 2014, 02:34:04 PM »
The reason the decision is hard is because they are that close. Looking at the Imaging Resource samples...

* For ISO 100-800 I would say that after post processing it's a wash, just like with the prior generation (7D vs. 5D2). No one is ever going to tell the prints apart, not even you if the labels are removed.

* Pixel peeping ISO 3200 I see higher IQ in the 5D3 shot even after processing the 7D2 shot. At 50%? Differences are pretty small, and at this MP size (7D2 scaled to match 5D3) that's a 20x30 print. You could pick them apart, but the difference just isn't that large. (That's an improvement over the last generation. I never would have said this about the 7D vs. 5D2, not at that print size.)

* ISO 6400 is where the 5D3 really starts to pull ahead. Judging from the various sample shots around the web, I think the 7D2 will be usable for smaller prints (8x12; 13x19) at ISO 6400 and even 12800, for most subject matter (particularly the target market, sports). But the FF bodies will clearly show an advantage here, and go even higher.

So you have to decide what ISOs you shoot at, and whether you want/need better IQ at high ISOs or more fps. Keep in mind your workflow and common print sizes. SOOC the differences are larger. And if you never print larger then 8x12...I'm not sure it ever matters.

What part of the world do you live in? Because by the sounds of it, wherever you do live, the wind don't blow there and the earth doesn't rotate either.

You can't HDR an interior because of the wind or the rotation of the Earth?  ???

As for landscapes...neither GND nor manual blends have any issue with movement as long as there's not a large moving section that crosses the line or mask. You're not going to HDR a sprinter, but wind is seldom an issue in a landscape. I can hand hold a 3 frame bracket for crying out loud. Just how hard is this wind blowing that things radically change in <0.5s?

HDR tools also have features to compensate for motion.

See that is the problem, if Canon is not the very best at something, then the problem can never, in any circumstance, ever, be real for anyone and the actual real world difference is always trivial and can, in all, cases, be not just worked around, but easily worked around.


Canon does not have a well supported mirrorless system, or a FF mirrorless. I love my M, but if you want a complete MILC kit, or a FF body for adapted rangefinder glass, the problem is not trivial and cannot be worked around.

There. Canon is not best at everything  ;)

In the case of low ISO DR that is simply not true.

So when I'm hiking and I lift my DSLR up and hand hold AEB 3 frames that I blend later...that's not an easy work around?

What is the situation, exactly, where the shadow latitude difference is both large and not easily worked around?

I dare you to find posts where those wanting Canon to improve DR go around blaiming lack of DR or whatever for a supposedly inability to ever make a great photo. Who has said that?

At one point (sorry jrista) the forum was being pointed towards Nikon HDR shots on Flickr with the claim that A) they were not HDR, and B) Canon could not produce the same at all even though Flickr is loaded with the same types of shots from Canon bodies.

You see this same kind of confirmation bias from certain online reviewers.

* Reviewer sees some small difference in a lab test where A is better then B.
* Reviewer takes and shoots only A in the field.
* Reviewer loves the results and writes about how only A could do it.
* Reviewer fails to test B in the field, and fails to look at the body of work from others using B.

Classic example is the recently released D750 review where the reviewer shot some junk in a corner at -5ev which the 5D3 could not match, then proceeded to glow about D750 wedding shots that the 5D3 (or even a 7D) could have easily matched. It was practically a bait and switch.

For most people, once you've psychologically convinced yourself that XYZ is better, then everything produced by XYZ automatically becomes evidence of how wonderful it is without any critical consideration of the question: could ABC have done the same thing? Is XYZ really making a difference in all these examples? Psychologically many will continue to insist that XYZ is far better even if you swap labels and they are praising ABC by accident! (The human mind is a strange thing  ;)   )

This isn't limited to DR. You will see the same nonsense in lens comparisons (for example). Heck, you'll see it in scientific fields were people are supposed to be aware of it and trained to avoid it.

Oh my, we're going full circle, aren't we? Just as I thought even the fiercest dr antagonists seem to conclude that for some applications (think "noon beach volleyball") 11ev or 14ev dr might make a real difference, it's back to square one with everything "easy to work around" :-p

Have you ever shot beach volleyball? You don't need 14 or even 11 stops. I used to shoot it with a Canon 10D in JPEG. 8 stops was more then enough. Everything is bright.

You should have said surfing. Sunlit water foam vs. black wetsuit and often shaded face. That could be a real challenge on the old 10D, 20D...since the 7D I haven't had any DR issues. JPEG+HTP could be a bit noisy back in the beginning, but with the firmware buffer update (now I only shoot RAW) and newer versions of ACR and the various plugins I use...there's nothing to improve upon as far as DR is concerned.

Landscapes and interiors are the last challenging subjects. Landscapes easily exceed any sensor, but they're still so HDR/GND. Same for interiors. Again I'll say that jrista's interior room test scene was better then most I've seen, but while it proved Exmor has less read noise (no shock), it also proved how little this really matters. The highlights were still blown to preserve the shadows. A real shot for a magazine would either A) go ahead and completely blow out the shuttered windows in a pleasing fashion, or B) use HDR.

If this was 8 stops vs. 14 the "DRoners" would have a point, and I would probably be shooting Nikon. But it's more like 12.5 (5D3) vs. 13.5, or 13 vs. 13 (APS-C), with a shadow latitude difference of +2.5 vs. +5. You're not capturing that much more, if any, tonal range...you can just reposition the shadow tones higher on the scale without read noise interfering.

Yeah, I see it. Yeah, it might occasionally be an important difference. No, it's not worth all this discussion.

The latter group far and away outnumbers the former.

And what does that matter?

Since the question of "meaningful difference" is subject to human opinion...quite a bit actually.

Do you honestly think that gives you a right to go around harassing the minority?

Implying it's not the other way around  ::)

History is packed with episodes where the majority was dead wrong, and the minority, sometimes even just one man, was dead on.

Yeah...we're talking about read noise in digital camera sensors when shadows are pushed +3 to +5 stops. This is a truly miniscule first world issue, not a turning point in human history.

This is exactly right. Canon sensor IQ (the quality of the data in their RAW images) is poor relative to the current best sensor IQ of today. Canon sensor IQ isn't second, or third...in the grand scheme of things, overall, Canon sensors come in dead last...RELATIVE TO OTHER CAMERAS/SENSORS OF CURRENT CAMERAS TODAY.

False. Canon sensors come in 'dead last' on ONE SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT. And by 'dead last' I mean 'better then any color film and the majority of digital sensors historically, i.e. better then what we've had available to shoot for most of our lives.'

Most shots simply do not need to have their shadows pushed.

Most of the shots that do are well within the range of what you can do with any modern Canon sensor.

Most of what's beyond that needs HDR on ANY modern camera.

And that tiny sliver of leftover images...which are in between the limits of Canon's +3 stop shadow latitude and Exmor's +5 stop shadow latitude...can still be easily captured on Canon with a couple frames, or a single frame of Magic Lantern dual ISO.

Resolution? It's very hard to find the differences between the 5D3 and Sony's 36 MP sensor even in a 36" print. A 5D3 with Canon's best glass is not "dead last" in terms of actual resolved detail. In fact, it's near the top of the list. (Even DxO supports this statement in their lens scores.)

High ISO? The 5D3 hangs with pretty much anything FF except the Sony 12 MP A7S. The 70D hangs with anything APS-C. Initial shots from the 7D2 look phenomenal for crop.

Lenses? Canon is without question first. Nobody has the depth or breadth of their lens library, or of their lens design and manufacturing capabilities. Other companies have excellent glass and may have the better version of a particular lens, but taken as a whole Canon is top dog.

If I ran into situations where that +5 stop shadow latitude mattered, I wouldn't be here every day complaining about it. I would buy different equipment.

As is I can hike a location like Zion, shoot handheld, push shadows like an angry Sith Lord, and produce technically perfect 16x24 prints.

I can also hand hold a 3-frame bracket...with no IS...at 8 fps on my 7D. Give me IS and the 10 fps of the 7D2 and I just might be able to hand hold 7-frame HDR brackets. (Can't wait to try this.) Top that DR!

This is a purely impersonal debate about technology, and the merits of different technologies. Trying to turn it into an insult is just a smoke screen,

Is DEAD LAST a technical term?  ;)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 53