September 30, 2014, 04:22:47 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 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 49
The T3/1100D was a 12 MP APS-C body with much newer sensor technology than other Canon bodies at similar resolution.  As you'd expect, the sensor had better noise performance that the 18 MP sensor variants.  But you're giving up a lot of features with a T3, relative to xxD or even xxxD bodies.

This is false. Measured in RAW with NR off, the gray and black noise levels from the T3 are the same as the 7D. The T3's chroma noise level is a bit better. You can see this at 100%, but when scaled to the same view size the 7D is as good or better.

With gapless microlenses there's little reason to expect larger pixels to yield less noise over the entire image. They should yield greater total DR, but few people are willing to give up the resolution for a bit more DR.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Laser Light Burns a DSLR Sensor in Canon 7D
« on: February 23, 2014, 06:46:17 PM »
If these nightclub lasers are damaging sensors, what the heck are they doing to eyeballs?  :o

I'm not familiar with what you shoot, but let's say you were surprised by a thrilling subject, and your subject was backlit or accidentally underexposed due to speed/position.  At this point, you would care a great deal about shadow recovery with minimal noise and banding.

I am absolutely sick of hearing about Sony sensors. They have a little more DR and a little more shadow recovery. They do not have so much more as to warrant the endless praise and discussion they receive, nor to justify the constant slamming of Canon's sensors.

The online "tests" which have caused all of this are quite obviously biased. Regardless of what is done with the Sony/Nikon files, the Canon files have all NR turned off in every "test" I've seen. I don't see noise or banding nearly as bad on an APS-C 7D that I see in the 5D3 in these online "tests". But then again, I'm not so stupid as to turn color NR off.

Even with Canon's APS-C sensors I routinely recover 2-3 stops of shadow detail with noise that is unobtrusive in a 16x20" print using ACR. If you can't do the same then you're doing it wrong.

Beyond that and both Canon and Sony sensors suffer from lack of tonality and fine detail. So I don't care much if you can push the Sony sensor +5 EV and see a little less color noise (given appropriate color NR settings) or a little less banding. I wouldn't use those shadows from either.

If Sony sensors were so dramatically better then the market share would not be so one sided between Canon and everyone else.

Lenses / Re: How many radioactive lenses do you own?
« on: February 04, 2014, 07:00:19 PM »
FYI - there's at least one app for the iPhone that can measure radioactivity: RadioactivityCounter. You have to cover your iPhone camera lens so that no light gets through, calibrate it by leaving it away from anything radioactivity for a few minutes, then place it very close to the source. It takes a while to get an accurate measurement but it does work. The app measures changes in noise output by the sensor.

Tested it with a few old lenses and found one radioactive one, the FL 50 f/1.8.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Best Nikon DF Review! By Fstoppers.
« on: January 24, 2014, 11:17:57 PM »
Fake aperture ring?  It think that says it all...

When is Canon going to do something innovative like retro fake aperture rings?  ;D

EOS-M / Re: Eos M vs Fujifilm X100
« on: December 15, 2013, 06:20:33 PM »
But I'll thrown in another thought for free - the X-100 is a camera that people want to use, whereas the Eos-M is a camera many people purchase simply because it is heavily discounted.

And then discover that they want to use it. There's a reason that the M, which has practically been forgotten by Canon USA, has such a strong following. I was one of the people who was hesitant about buying it even at the heavily discounted price, only to end up loving it and using it as much or more then my DSLRs.

And to the poster who claimed the Fuji 'blows away' the M on IQ: the X100s is a little bit better at high ISO. There's no real difference any where else. (What is it with photographers and hyperbole? "Blows away" would be a 5D3 at 3200 vs. a 20D at 3200. Tiny differences most will never notice even in huge prints != "blow away.")

As I see it there are three major differences between these cameras that would determine OP's choice.

* Viewfinder. M has none, X100 has one of the best. I find I do not miss a VF on the M, though to be fair I have DSLRs and use those with subject matter where I probably would miss a VF.

* Analog vs. touch screen control. This is a matter of personal preference, though admittedly most would prefer more physical controls. I like the M's touchscreen, but I do wish it had 2 dials for directly accessing shutter and aperture in manual mode.

* Lens interchangeability. Fuji X100s has one lens, the M has 3 dedicated and can take hundreds more via adapters. Notably, it is 100% AF/AE/aperture control compatible with Canon's EF/EF-S lenses via adapter.

Just depends on what you want out of the camera.

Granted, the printer interface for the Pro-10 is much nicer than the Epson, and switching black inks is automatic on the Canon and must be done manually on the 3800.

Are you sure? If I'm on, say, photo black and pick a matte paper the 3880 will change for me. I don't have to walk up to the printer and change it on the printer UI.

I did pick up a pack of Canon matte paper, and although I didn't like it at first, the look has grown on me.

Hot Press Bright won me over with the first print. Before that I was partial to glossy and semi gloss / luster papers. Hot Press Bright has the color, saturation, contrast, and deep blacks of glossy papers without the glossy sheen between your eyes and the detail. I love it.

For B&W I like Harman Matt Cotton Smooth a little better. For color, Hot Press Bright. But they are very, very close. If I'm out of one I won't hesitate to substitute the other. Most of what I print to hang on a wall now ends up on one of those two papers.

Thanks for the detailed reply and that's some interesting math!  I have owned several Epson printers over the years and have never been happy with the color, even after extensive calibration.  The Canon profiles and ability to print in 16-bit color aren't perfect, but MUCH closer than any of my calibrated Epson's ever were.  Being able to make a single print versus many to get the color right is going to save me a lot of money.

I never have to make prints to get the color right with the 3880. As long as I keep my monitor calibrated and choose the correct paper profile, what I see is what I get. I should note that I have setup the lights in my office for proofing prints, both in terms of brightness and color temperature.

I can say the same for Advanced B&W mode with one change: I choose the Dark setting instead of the default (which I believer is Darker). With that one adjustment my B&W prints match my screen and are the equal of anything I used to produce in a darkroom, if not better.

This wasn't the case with past Epson printers I've used, especially when it came to B&W. But the 3880 was calibrated out of the box. And I have yet to encounter a bad paper profile from Epson or any of the 3rd parties.

Well, I happened upon a gently used Epson 3800 for a fair price. It was local, so I could check it out.

Had to buy some ink, but I'm still in it for less than a 3880 refurb and way less than a new 3880.

Doesn't seem to be too many real life major differences between the 3800 and 3880 based on a quick search.

Network setup (wired) was a bit of a pain. No PnP there. Had to read the manual.

Tried out some prints onto Canon paper, and as long as I pick the right settings, print output looks very, very good.

Good find. There's very little real difference between the two.

I highly recommend trying out Epson's Hot Press Bright paper. Epson has a paper sample pack that's worth getting. It has two sheets each of all the press variations, exhibition fiber, etc. I was a glossy paper fan until I tried the press papers. Of course there's a ton of papers from 3rd parties as well.

inkjet printing isn't "economical", but small ink cartridges don't match well with bigger prints...

Exactly. I do consider the 3800/3880 economical once you've dealt with the up front cost above the value of the ink included with the printer.

I looked at the 4900, and the net is full of poor reviews. I get it that it is more common to post poor reviews than good ones.

That's surprising to me. But when I did a search after reading your post it looks like they have a failing print head issue with that model. The actual reviews are good, the ratings and complaints trace back to that issue. Disappointing.

I don't think that's happening with the 3880 line, but mine was manufactured a few years ago.

Any particular time to watch for Epson deals, with "Black Friday" and "cyber Monday" distant memories now?

None that I'm aware of.

I have a feeling that the Pro-10 doesn't have "hot swappable" ink tanks.

I have also been wondering if all inks are primed when one tank is replaced. I haven't been able to find any support in the manual yet.

Is there an Epson that shares the strong points outlined in your posting but doesn't require a change of black ink for glossy/matte?

I don't know why Epson does this, but I think even the 4900 and above share a line for matte and glossy black. Keep in mind that you do not physically swap the carts. Both blacks stay in the printer. If there's a paper type switch the printer will flush and prime the line.

According to the Epson 3800 FAQ at swapping to matte costs $0.85 cents and swapping to photo (glossy) costs $2.25. Enough to make you think about your printing and batch prints, but not enough to get upset over if you need to switch back and forth a couple times to meet a deadline.

The positives completely eclipse this one annoyance. I guarantee you other printers waste more ink $$$ with their stupid clogs and cleaning cycles then this model does swapping blacks. The carts last forever even with the swaps.

If you want the advantages of home printing, take a look at Epson's 3880. It's part of their professional line and big enough to overcome the major disadvantages with home photo ink jets, but still small enough to be manageable (space; ink cost and usage) for a home user.

* The carts are big. I can print sheet after sheet, 17x22, and the ink levels barely budge. (Cost per print is about even with labs for 8x10 and cheaper for larger sizes, assuming paper of similar quality.)

* I've literally gone months without printing only to power up, hear the printer run a single auto clean cycle, and print a perfect test sheet. It just doesn't clog.

* It seems to actually track time and sheets printed and auto clean when it needs to, not just because you powered off for a few minutes. I've never kept track to know what the triggers are, but I've also never had the impression it was wasting ink.

* Even when it warns that a cart is low, you keep printing. There's probably a dozen or more 16x20's left in the cart. You can change carts mid-print without affecting the print, so you just keep going until it asks for a new cart.

* Changing a cart does not touch the ink levels in the other carts. Only the changed line is primed. Most ink jets prime every line once a single cart is changed which defeats the whole purpose of individual carts and is a big part of the reason why ink disappears into a void.

* IQ, paper choices, longevity...all top of the line. At the 2nd best resolution setting (1440 instead of 2880) this printer will put lab prints to shame.

I should note that I do not and would not use my 3880 for anything but photos. I have a separate, cheap ink jet for text.

The only drawback is that the glossy and matte blacks share a line, so if you change paper types you lose some ink (a few bucks worth). So you need to batch your prints by type. But the printer performs so well...and the carts last so long...that this is hardly worth complaining about.

EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: November 30, 2013, 09:01:45 PM »
1. DR - I could bump my shadows up +1-1.5 in LR and still retain detail. With my 5DMIII I generally try not to bump up shadows because it immediately causes banding/visual garbage which I have to later filter out.

I routinely bump crop files by this much without difficulty. To say nothing of what I can do with a 5D3 file.

Nikon fans typically "test" the two by turning all NR off on the Canon side (but not always on the Nikon side). You do realize that this is not how you actually process a RAW file with pushed shadows, right?

This was years ago, but I remember photographing surfers from a local pier with a 10D and 70-200 f/4L. The 20D had just come out. While I'm shooting some guy walks up with a brand new 20D and some 3rd party zoom (forget which). Asked what I was shooting, then proceeded to spend 15 minutes telling me how I needed to upgrade because the 20D was so much better, it wasn't even worth shooting a 10D any more.

15 minutes. I kept shooting. He kept talking.

"Yeah, I'll have to think about upgrading" and we parted ways. As he walked away I couldn't help but wonder: what's the point of a better camera if you don't ever press the shutter button?

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 49