August 27, 2014, 05:18:34 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 37
301
I made a statement, You said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

I've provided many, many samples of the 5Dc's superb IQ. You have provided none.

You haven't provided a single sample for comparison. Nor could you provide one on request here, even though you claim to have handled both.

Your statement claims the opposite of published, professional test data and sample images (DPReview; Imaging Resource). Therefore the burden of proof is entirely on you.

But go ahead and rant in 36 point again like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.

302
Show me some of your ISO 3200 Shots from both cameras. I've owned both before and the 5Dc has better ISO performance.

No. You show hard evidence that the reproducible tests available at sites like DPReview and IR are wrong. I'm not the one waving my hand at and dismissing hard data. You are. Back it up or shut up.

And it better be perfect...and reproducible...right down to the last parameter. Not different subjects, lighting, and exposure, shot on the fly at different times and places, then compared, probably at the wrong magnification (i.e. 100% for both meaning the 7D file is inspected more closely), which is typical of people making claims that go against reality.

And don't reply with 36 point type like some child.

303
Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.

No it's not. We're not discussing opinion here. Noise levels are objective, testable reality. The 7D tests lower across the board (chroma, black, grey). This doesn't magically change with a "real world" scene.

The chroma noise difference in particular is human observable in print where the 7D clearly looks better.

304
The 6d will only be a little better because of the larger pixels...

There is no real difference in the pixel size. Certainly nothing that could be responsible for a visible IQ difference. If the 6D proves to have higher SNR per pixel...which I highly doubt...it will be due to other design/fabrication changes.

More than likely the tiny difference in MP is due to design changes to increase wafer yields. It's even possible that 6D pixels are the same size as 5D3 pixels or a bit smaller if this is the case.

305
Disagree. I've already had this discussion here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9773.msg176369#msg176369

I could never get as clean ISO-3200 Shots w/o serious NR out of my 7D.

Then you weren't doing proper comparisons. Review controlled tests and noise measurements. The 5Dc is not better than the 7D at 3200.

Quote
I could only dream of this on my 7D.

I see it all the time.

306
There's either an exposure or a levels difference between the two. I don't see any real difference in noise. If there is a difference, it is well below the threshold of differences introduced by post processing (NR software and technique).

The 6D shots might be a little bit underexposed compared to 5D3 but nevertheless, I can see it a little bit better than 5D3.  Besides, generally underexposure usually means more noise when processed.  Is this NR or is this really a new sensor technology?  Let's wait till December.  :)

You're assuming underexposure vs. the tonal curves of the cameras (or some related setting). At 6400 there's no actual resolution difference, and little noise/contrast/color difference which disappears with a levels adjustment.

At 102k there's more of a difference at first glance. But it could still be due to the camera tone curves.

Sorry, I think people are getting excited about JPEG processing. And not even JPEG NR processing, but small differences in image parameters between a consumer and a pro camera.

307
Did a quick and dirty comparison using shots from dpreview. Canon 6D against the 5D mkIII at ISO 102400. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Again, there is a lighting / exposure / processing difference at play. It's hard to discern real noise differences with these confounding factors, but any real noise differences are likely less than those introduced by user post work.

Side note: I hate the new DPReview "low light" test. Brightly lit objects against pure black is not the situation where DSLRs struggle. With this test a 7D would produce good 6400 shots. No, the problem is when a lot of your detail falls on the shadow side (not black), especially if you have to lift in post. It's these situations which force me to cap 7D shots at 3200 and 5D2 shots at 6400.

308
Here's the 6D studio shot at ISO-6400. And here's the 5DIII shot.

There's either an exposure or a levels difference between the two. I don't see any real difference in noise. If there is a difference, it is well below the threshold of differences introduced by post processing (NR software and technique).

309
EOS Bodies / Re: Has Canon entered the Graveyard Spiral?
« on: November 12, 2012, 06:35:06 PM »
On a recent leopard safari the Nikon D4 crowd simply ran away with shots compared to the best our 1D Mk4s could deliver. We are not only talking sensor performance, although we lived like lepers with only ISO 1600 max, the most frustrating feature is that the fitting of a flash to the 1D Mk4 forces Auto ISO to fix at 400.

While I do not question the flash issue, I couldn't help but laugh at the rest of your post.

* It's nonsense (or troll bait) to suggest that the 1D4 cannot shoot higher than ISO 1600.

* No way a D4 user should "run away" from a 1D4 user purely because of the camera. The D4 is newer/better, but simply not by any great amount.

* If Auto ISO wasn't working for me on a trip like that, I wouldn't use it, and no D4 user would "run away" from me.

Quote
All recently released bodies had significant problems and required post release upgrades and firmware replacement.

No, they did not.

Quote
A lot of noise being made about the 1DX, probably the best copy of a Nikon 3D that Canon ever produced, and is probably marginally better than the D3, I seems a capable camera but only if compared to the previous Nikon model.

Absolute nonsense. It is clearly competitive with the D4.

Quote
My concern is the rate at which the local photo community is switching to Nikon. With profitability already down Canon is yielding significant market share to innovative and high quality Nikon products and that means less money, also for R&D, resulting in less capable kit, resulting in less sales, resulting in less money…..

Last time I saw stats Canon still held #1 market share position. Do you have newer info? Source?

Quote
Should they rather focus on the point and shoot consumer market and leave the high end stuff to professionals?

TROLL ALERT  >:(

310
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Would I benefit from going full frame?
« on: November 09, 2012, 09:17:38 AM »
I have an APS-C setup with the 7D and 10-22 and 17-55 2.8. I have considered moving to FF with the recent reduction in prices of the 5DII and the 6D being announced, but here's the dilemma:
1. I am quite happy with the IQ of the 7D up to ISO 1600, but the noise above that is bad. So indoor photography without flash suffers. That is the main reason for my FF considerations.
2. I am aware that if I move to FF, I will have to trade my EF-S lenses for FF equivalents. My lenses will hold their value and I can get the 24-105 and 17-40 without losing any money (cannot afford the 24-70 II). But while the 24-105 is very good lens, I am not so sure about the 17-40. I didn't like the copy I owned (and I used it on a 5DII as well). And, I cannot afford the 16-35 II. Additionally, if I use f/4 after moving to FF- what do I gain over using f/2.8 in APS-C?
3. I did like using the 5DII for the short time I had it and the images were very nice, especially since I almost exclusively use the center AF point, but I do use the high-speed mode a lot on my 7D and I will certainly miss it (and again, cannot afford the 5DIII).

* The stop difference between your 17-55 and its FF replacement(s) is most of the difference in high ISO between the 7D and 5D2. The 5D3 is better still, but you've ruled that out for now on price. Nobody knows what the 6D will be like, though I imagine it will be comparable to the 5D3.

* You say noise above 1600 is bad. Use Canon's DPP for high ISO shots along with a 3rd party NR plugin. With that combination I find ISO 3200 noise is difficult to detect in an 8x10 print.

* Finally, for the price and hassle of moving, why not just add a fast prime?

If you could afford the 5D3 I would say go for it. But my guess is you will miss the speed and AF of the 7D vs. the 6D. Add a fast prime and optimize your high ISO workflow.

311
Lenses / Re: Protective filter [for Canon 15-85]
« on: November 03, 2012, 06:04:10 PM »
Hoya S-HMC or HD. They have the same optical quality, but the HD is more resistant to breaks/scratches/smudges. I've repeatedly tested S-HMC filters to look for image degradation and additional flare. Not once have I found it.

The Pro1 filters are good, but actually shy of the optical quality of the S-HMC and HD. They're probably close enough that you wouldn't notice 98% of the time.

312
Software & Accessories / Re: LR noise reduction in comparison to DPP
« on: October 31, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »
In my experience Adobe's tools yield higher resolution/finer detail. Canon's DPP can be adjusted for less noise.

I use ACR for pretty much anything through ISO 800, and DPP for 1600 and 3200.

313
EOS Bodies / Re: Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!
« on: October 26, 2012, 08:38:52 AM »
If one converts a 8x10 film with a modern scanner ... say with 4000dpi ... a single 8x10 film will look like (4000 ppi)(8 in)(4000 ppi)(10 in) = 1280 Mpixels or 1.28Gb !!!!

Ahhh...no. Medium format digital backs were arguably a match for 4x5 at around 40 MP, and definitely by 80 MP.

Still...that's more than 22 MP. (Though part of the IQ comes from the larger format.)

There aren't very many artist / subject / print size combinations which call for 4x5, 8x10, or high resolution MF digital. The difference is obvious when you have a combination which calls for it. But it's rare.

314
Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 26, 2012, 02:33:25 AM »
Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.

They must have had a bad copy. All other reviews report the Sigma being much sharper wide open, as it was designed to be.

Hmm... don't know about that.  LensRentals also noted that the Sigma had softer edges/corners.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
I have read that weeks ago.  That's totally different with my experience.  Actually you will see many people here have same feeling Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4.

DPReview found the Sigma was sharper wide open except in the extreme corners. And you can see the results at TDP. I don't discount the two reviews that show otherwise, but against the body of user reports I think they show production issues / variability.

Quote
My suggestion for people cannot make decision between the two lenses is that first get both of them at the same time.  And then keep the one you like and return another one.

Good advice. This might also be a lens that warrants cherry picking at a local store.

Regarding AF: I did some tripod mounted tests with the Sigma 50 1.4, Canon 50 1.4 and 1.8, and Canon 85 1.8. I repeatedly manually unfocused, then auto focused each. All of the above showed some variability shot to shot. The Canon 85 was the most consistent, followed by the Sigma, and trailed by the two Canon 50's. It should be noted that AF performance can vary unit to unit as well.

Why did I do this? At first I felt like I was missing more shots with the Sigma. Then it dawned on me that I was also using it wide open far more often then I ever did the Canons. I never really considered them usable wide open except in an emergency. I won't hesitate to use the Sigma at 1.4.

The Canon 50's are gone, though I kept the Canon 85 (great crop portrait and indoor sports lens).

315
Lenses / Re: 50 mm Can't make up my mind!
« on: October 25, 2012, 08:57:26 PM »
Based on resolution tests the Canon 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4 are both similar in the center but the Canon is much sharper in the corners.

They must have had a bad copy. All other reviews report the Sigma being much sharper wide open, as it was designed to be.

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 37