January 26, 2015, 09:32:08 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 ... 57
31
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:05:37 AM »
I did a similar test in another thread and saw that while the NX1 is about equal to the 7D2 for high ISO in bright light, it's worse in the DPReview lowlight test with both downsampled to 8MP and a small amount of chroma noise reduction applied.  The quality of the NX1 noise was odd and detracted from the image quality.

If I have to choose with no NR I would pick the NX1 by a hair. With color NR I would pick the 7D2, though again by a small margin.

Color noise...so long as it's below a certain threshold...cleans up easily in ACR. With that removed the NX1 seems to have more luminance noise, though not enough that I would pick between the two based on this.

32
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 03, 2014, 12:03:49 AM »
It should also be noted that the worst AF performance in this review occurred with a specific lens. The 85mm. When he put on the 16-500mm f/2, the AF performance shot up and seemed fine.

The tracking sequence was shot with the 16-50 and it was terrible.

33
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 09:10:05 PM »
Most reviewers of the reviewers concluded that they had not set up the camera properly though.

It's easy to post that in comments, but is there any evidence that this is the case? We've got two reviews reporting the same results. The guys in the GCF review played with the frame rate and AF configuration trying to get it to work. You can tell the one guy has no love for Canon and wanted the NX1 to perform, but couldn't get it to.

34
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samsung NX-1 Review
« on: December 02, 2014, 06:05:52 PM »
There is a lot of buzz about the IQ coming out of the NX1 so I downloaded the NX1 studio "DNG" files from DPreview and did a few comparisons...You are free to make up your own mind, but so far I cannot agree with people who say that the NX1's high-ISO noise performance is close to "some" current full frame cameras, I'm just not seeing it.

The NX1 seems to be the camera everyone wants to love. 28 MP...BSI...insane number of AF points...15 fps...on paper it looks like it blows away the competition.

Reality is turning out to be a little different.

Turn off the NR and the sensor is no better then competing crop sensors. That's not a bad thing, it's definitely at the top of the heap and IQ is excellent. But it's not FF, and it does not offer a high ISO, DR, or detail gain over the competition.

AF at 15 fps? Well...

In TheCameraStoreTV's review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flm65f2Gy8) there's a short AF tracking sequence. Their stated opinion was that it did well, but I think anyone who has used an upper tier DSLR would be horrified. Half the frames were OOF while tracking a guy approaching at the speed of a brisk walk / slow jog. They also noted that single shot AF performance was poor in low light and inconsistent at best in good light.

Golden City Film's review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cplbNmft74k) is painful to watch. These guys need a script, a 20m time limit, and a few Red Bulls. But to the point...their review of the NX1's AF and EVF could hardly be worse. They hated it in the studio and when trying to shoot running dogs. You can tell the one guy doesn't like Canon. He even says at one point that he laughed when the NX1 was announced hoping it would be a 7D II killer from the paper specs. But he's keeping the 7D II having concluded the NX1 is useless for stills in the situations he needs, both sports and studio work with strobes. The review is...harsh on the AF, the EVF, and also the buffer.

On the other hand...every review has glowed about the NX1's video quality. Everyone seems to love it. No one is even bothering to talk about video on the 7D II. Which is a shame because I would imagine the 7D II has the processing power to output 4k and to do a better job on video quality. I'll be the first to point out that the 7D II is a very targeted, high end crop sports/wildlife/action camera, not a video camera. Never the less Canon seems to be slipping on video, at least outside of the high end, $,$$$ pro market.

35
I am right there with you...I really dislike the blotchy color noise of Canon cameras.

Color noise in the 7D2 samples cleans up completely, with no loss of detail, using CNR in ACR. This is true for the NX1 as well.

Cleaning up luminance noise, no matter how random/fine, is always a trade off involving noise and detail.

36
My comparison of RAW samples (no NR at all - no Chroma no Luminance  NR)  at DP comparison tool   which I posted a bit earlier shows that at  ISO3200 NX1 RAW samples visually  look better/cleaner/crisper than ones from 7Dm2  and as I also noted NX1 noise pattern is visually better and more pleasant than noise pattern of 7Dm2.

In the tool the NX1 image is larger and therefore gives a better impression as to sharpness and detail. Psychologically you will always pick the larger image even if the smaller is actually a little better, and even if one image is displayed at two different sizes and you are told they are different cameras. This does not happen when the images are viewed at the same size, even when scaling the 7D2 up.

As to the noise, same as in the IR scene. With no NR the Canon is slightly worse (more color noise). With color NR...which completely eliminates the color noise in ACR btw...the NX1 is sightly worse (more luminance noise, and that's harder to clean up). Never the less, the differences are far too tiny to matter in print.

I would bring up mountains and mole hills but this is more like mountains out of ant hills.

37
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."

38
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.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/E5D3hSLI006400NR0.CR2.HTM

39
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  ;)

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

40
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.

41
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.

42
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.)

Quote
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.

43
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 LensRentals.com 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.

44
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."

45
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.

Quote
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."

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