December 27, 2014, 02:19:34 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 57
That's my point. Statistically, the NX1 has lower noise, which leads to richer color and contrast (hence the reason the parts of the NX1 image that are supposed to be dark look dark! :P)

It does have very slightly lower noise, but that is not the reason it's a darker image which is what leads to the difference in our perception of color and contrast.

Again I'll note that with color NR the 7D II ends up looking a tiny bit cleaner, i.e. lower luminance noise. But in the end neither requires a different work flow or more work. Neither has "better data."

It should also be noted that I could not find an actual 5D III raw file for download from IR. I looked around, and I could be missing it...but all I could find was a JPEG converted from RAW.

5D3 review, samples, thumbnails, scroll way down for this scene in ISO 6400.

Hmm, I am not sure what your using to process, but you are getting radically different results than I am.

Since there's only one ACR update that can process RAWs from either camera, it's pretty obvious what I'm using  ;)

This is from ACR in PSCC...I simply opened both ISO 6400 NR0 RAW files without any edits in ACR, downsampled the NX1 to the 7D II dimensions, and aligned the images as layers, then cropped the following area:

I turned off sharpening, LNR, and CNR, and then scaled up, just like I said. I want to see what comes off the sensor. And I didn't want anyone replying that I made the 7D II look better by scaling the NX1 down to its dimensions.

Your results are not "radically" different from my 7D2vNX1 screenshot. Are you confusing that with the 5D3vNX1 screenshot?

There appears to be visibly less noise in the NX1 image. The color also appears to be richer, less washed out.

The NX1 appears darker in both our samples. Not sure why. That affects perception of noise and color, even more so at a smaller scale, and would affect any statistical analysis. That said, I would give the edge to the NX1 by a hair, but not enough to matter when using NR and other settings in ACR and PS.

More to the point, the NX1 is not equivalent to the 5D3, and the difference there matters.

To see if my feelings about the images were correct, I saved the cropped areas as 32-bit TIFF and ran both through PixInsight's statistics tool.

You're splitting hairs. No one would ever know the difference in a processed print. The NX1 has the expected IQ for a modern crop sensor, but it does not leap ahead of anyone else. In fairness, neither does the 7D2, though I think it does gain a little on the 70D to put it on par with the competition in terms of high ISO.

I would have expected BSI to result in more of a gain based on its impact on smaller sensors, but perhaps Samsung isn't quite on par in some other respect like micro lenses.

In case anyone is interested, here's the 7D2 and NX1, again with no sharpening or NR and the 7D2 scaled up. I would say the 7D2 here is a bit worse.

I think the NX1 DOES have about the same noise as the 5D III.

Screenshot of 5D3 and NX1 at ISO 6400, converted in ACR with NO sharpening, LNR, or CNR. All other settings default, 5D3 scaled up to match NX1 pixel dimensions.

NX1 has more noise.

So...I was browsing around imaging resource, checking out the NX1 preview. I started comparing the sample images with the 7D II. I was blown away by the quality of the NX1 up through ISO 6400, and even 12800 for that matter. You can clearly tell the 7D II is noisier. So, I decided to compare with the 5D III.

Really? I'm surprised you're impressed.

These are JPEGs and the NX1 is obviously using more aggressive NR. NX1's ISO 6400, at this NR setting, looks a little like "water color" to me. The 7D II JPEG looks worse but that's because Canon's JPEG engine is...not ideal when it comes to preserving detail. I would take the 5D III JPEG any day, but I also would not shoot any of these cameras in JPEG.

I've downloaded, converted, and compared the 7D II and NX1 RAW files using ACR. At 6400 with zero NR the 7D II has a bit more color noise. With color NR set at 35 on both all the color noise is gone and it appears the NX1 has slightly more luminance noise. In the end it's too small to matter either way, a click on the NR slider changes the results, but both cameras benefit substantially from RAW+ACR. (From a detail perspective Sony has a great JPEG engine, too bad their AWB sucks.)

The NX1 has more megapixels than even the 5D III, and the noise is just about as clean.

I doubt that's true in RAW. And the MP didn't seem to matter comparing to the 7D II. At base ISO after scaling the 7D II file up I couldn't find any additional detail in the NX1 file, and the 7D II was even a little sharper.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: LuLa likes the Samsung NX1
« on: November 25, 2014, 08:45:53 PM »
Well since there is no standard for the term "weather sealing" it is hard to tell if they got it right or wrong. No one is claiming that the camera is "weather sealed" only that it has "weather sealing".  So if it is sealed against dust and minor splashes, it probably does have "weather sealing"

That's the problem with camera manufacturers using the term "weather sealing"

I agree in general, but given the examination of the 7D mark II I think it's safe to say the 7D2 is on a different level of sealing. The NX1 is probably comparable to something like a 60D or 70D.

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:40:37 PM »
They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features'  ::). And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode  ::).

Fair points when it comes to video...maybe enough that "mixed" should be "yes."

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:39:19 PM »
Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me.

"Ways"...they are behind in base ISO DR.

And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints

I've performed blind and even double blind tests and neither I nor my colleagues could sort the prints. Forgive me if I don't take your word on this one.

You start to see small differences at 30/36". And I would emphasize "start" and "small."

Canon General / Re: Does Canon really deserve this?
« on: November 22, 2014, 06:13:31 PM »
In regard to mirrorless? Yes.
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

In regard to sensors? No.
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon has improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?"  ::)

In regard to lenses? No, except maybe on price.
This is where Canon innovates and really delivers, more then anyone else. Heck, there's probably an even split between people who buy an A7 to use Leica glass and people who buy an A7 to use Canon glass! The only complaint is the price on new L glass. Remember when Canon beat Nikon on price to?  :(

In regard to service/support? No, they are arguably the best out there.

In regard to video? Mixed.

DPAF is actually fairly innovative and a joy to use with a touch screen. But they are clearly protecting their cinema line by holding off on 4k introduction in consumer DSLRs.

And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

In regard to "wow this is NEW" factor? Yes.

Even though the buying public still runs to DSLRs, those who talk about cameras are enamored with mirrorless. The MILC companies are thrashing around introducing new bodies, configurations, and features hoping to boost sales. Those who talk about cameras see this as "innovation." Sometimes it is, but the reality is that they are struggling with underlying problems that hamper consumer and professional adoption.

Example: The NX1 is "exciting" because Samsung never had anything like this before, and because they have pushed paper specs. The 7D2 is "boring" because the 7D before it was so good to begin with there's not a lot to improve. But which camera actually serves the needs of the sports/wildlife market? The 7D2 because the NX1 doesn't have any lenses, initial reports are that AF still struggles in situations where you would expect mirrorless to struggle, and few action photographers want to deal with an EVF. You can't overcome that with "exciting."

For heaven's sake, yes, take a 7D2.

The weather sealing is not mere marketing. disassembled the 7D mark II and found it to be the most heavily sealed body they've cracked open. Guarantee you the 6D does not have that level of sealing. It matters. Enough that I would consider two 7D mark II's for a trip like that, or a 7D mark II and a 5D3. I would expect an unprotected 6D to fail in those conditions.

I've left my original 7D in the snow to shoot star trails, only to walk out later and find solid ice all over it...and it was still shooting. I've also drenched it in rain. The only time it had a problem was when a non weather sealed lens was attached, and fortunately drying it out took care of it. The 7D2 goes further and seals some points that I was surprised, reading the LensRentals article, were not sealed before.

As someone noted above, no weather sealing can protect you while changing lenses, cards, and batteries. DO NOT do this immediately after moving between warm/cold environments. Stuff your equipment in a bag...lens attached...and give it time to acclimate before detaching and opening things. I remember reading about the LL 5D2 fiasco and some of the details on forums put the 5D2 in a better light, i.e. bodies were failing because people were not allowing them to acclimate before exposing them to the air (lens off, battery out, etc). Still, I think the 5D2 had some weak points including the vertical grip.

Finally: remember that some weather sealed lenses must have a filter on the front to complete the sealing. The 17-40L is one, but there are others.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 04:46:51 PM »
Sorry to disagree but it's not just about reach. Setting aside the debate about the  smaller sensor and the effect that has on image quality, pro's and con's, my 5D3 feels like a lumbering dinosaur after shooting with the 7D2 for two weeks. It really is that much more responsive. I can see how people get hooked on those 1 series bodies.  If you are shooting with a 1DX or 1D4 than it's hard to make the pro 7D2 argument. But the AF and 10/fps are alone worthy of adding this camera to a 6D or 5D3 if you are shooting moving subjects.

No, it's not just about reach, and I didn't mean to imply it was. What I meant was if a 5D3 owner asked me about buying a 7D2 ONLY for additional reach...i.e. he didn't care about anything else...I couldn't recommend it just for that.

If you want the incredible responsiveness of the AF and 10 fps, by all means, 7D2. Brand new, nothing short of $6,500 is going to get you a more responsive action DSLR.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Sending my 7D2 back due to high ISO noise
« on: November 21, 2014, 02:16:08 PM »
I am no crop camera apologist, but to me the differences are small, couple that with the fact that the 7D MkII shot light is flatter, either a few minutes later or on a more shady part of the water, and if they are both close to 100% then you are enlarging the 7D MkII image nearly twice as much, makes me think you might not be comparing this as evenly as you think.

Yeah...I clicked all the way through to Flickr to make sure I was viewing the original size, flipped between the browser tabs a couple times...and had to come back here to read which was 5D3 and which was 7D2.

I say it all the time even though it offends people and makes me a pariah, but if you expect A to be better then B you will believe it is better and rationalize that it is better even when someone has flipped the labels and you are actually praising B! This is seen in wine tasting, audio equipment testing, photo print comparisons.... Double blind the test and people often can't tell the two apart where they previously thought the difference was huge...JUST HUGE!

That said, I would not normally recommend a 5D3 owner get a 7D2 for extra reach. Too much is made of the difference. You have to be cropping much further then APS-C...and then printing observe the reach advantage of a crop sensor. It comes into play when you're left with 8 MP from the crop sensor, and <3 MP from the FF, and you need to print 16x24. And if you run into that situation it is significant. You can pick it out in a double blind test. But honestly ask yourself how often you run into that situation? If it's very often you might be better served by a new lens any way.

Yeah, but according to DxO that's a WIN!!


I've discovered how DxO comes up with its overall score.

Color Depth: 10%
Low Light / High ISO: 20%
Low ISO Dynamic Range: 9,001%

I was just looking at the raw SNR charts for the 7d2 vs EM10 on DxOmark - looks like the little MFT Oly is a match or win over most of the chart from base to top ISO.  The Oly's a bit less colorblind too.

You might want to look at actual RAW files, the DPReview studio comparison tool, or IR's comparometer. The EM10 doesn't win outside of DxOLand.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 57