September 20, 2014, 02:16:55 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 - Kernuak

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 74
871
Landscape / Re: McArthur-Burney Falls - first time shooting waterfall
« on: March 01, 2012, 01:55:48 PM »
That looks much better, but have a go at boosting the darks and shadows too.

872
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images From Shanghai
« on: March 01, 2012, 07:11:22 AM »
To me it looks like Canon has got it wrong: it is not "Speed & Quality" what is needed but rather "Quality & Speed".

I even have some hesitations over the latter. While there definitely IS the need for some very specific applications, most of the time it looks to me it is just about pointless high speed shots and even then heavily cropped to save what there is to save because of mindless shutter clicking.
While I agree that a high fps isn't the answer to getting a shot, there are times where it is needed. The majority of the time, you can predict when the "moment" is going to happen, but for wildlife and some sports, that isn't always possible. You have an idea it is about to happen, but not exactly when, that is when the motor drive is handy. It's like any tool, it's there for when you need it, but shouldn't be used all the time. If you aren't shooting subjects where it is needed, then you just don't use it to avoid unecessary shots.

873
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 29, 2012, 04:44:26 PM »
The 7D isn't really suited to landscape work, for more reasons than DR, it can do it, but it doesn't produce the best results.

Hmm, really? I...I would have never known...

(Just a random sampling. Take a skilled photographer, the 10-22 EF-S, and maybe a few GND filters, and the 7D can do wonders!)
http://500px.com/photo/1157203
http://500px.com/photo/3718508
http://500px.com/photo/3131439
http://500px.com/photo/1929326
http://500px.com/photo/3981585

Sadly, you can clearly tell most of those have used a GND filter or two. But thats exactly my point about DR. ;)

You don't need a 10-22 to get good results, in fact for many of the landscapes around here, that would be far too wide. The difference is, when you're using longer focal lengths, you need narrower apertures, so diffraction becomes more of an issue. While they're good images, they're too heavily processed for my tastes. That's probably the main difference between your experience and mine, as the more processing work, the greater the chance that noise starts to show. Also, I judge based on 50%, as that is more representative of what is visible in an average print and may have a greater tolerance for noise in an image anyway.

Quote
Just like the 5D MkII and wildlife, it can do it, but it isn't its forte. I orignally got my 7D to replace the 40D, but I kept the 40D, following an instance where I missed a shot through only having one body. The plan was to use it for landscape and wildlife, just like I had with the 40D. I had seen some deficiencies with the 40D for landscapes, but as soon as I got the 7D, everything was magnified.

The reason the 5D II isn't great for wildlife is because its limited by AF.

Precisely. However, when it gets dark, I find the AF on the 5D MkII more reliable...as long as I use the centre point.

Quote
It doesn't really have better DR than the 7D though (I think the difference between the two is a small fraction of a stop).

I didn't say that the 5D has more DR than the 7D (DXO suggests the opposite), but in terms of what [i'I[/i] find usable, it is better, in fact, the cut off at both ends is slightly different between the two. It also has a different tonality, that I prefer.

Quote
Conversely, the 7D HAS a highly capable AF system, but that doesn't preclude it from being used for other purposes, like landscapes. If the 5D III gets a nice AF system, it will be every bit as capable for wildlife as for landscapes, limited against the 7D only in the aspect of reach.

Likewise, I didn't say that it was preculded from other purposes, on the contrary, I used it for landscapes for around 6+ months before I got the 5D.

L zooms start to look soft on crop cameras due to diffraction and of course, the diffraction limited aperture on the 7D is wider than on the 40D due to the pixel density and interference due to Airey discs. This coupled with the higher resolution show up the softer images more, particularly in the corners (even though the worst performing parts of a lens are cropped out by the sensor).

I think this is an area where most people misunderstand diffraction. On the 7D, vs. the 40D, diffraction only sets in sooner...simply because the 7D is recording at a higher resolution. The 7D is recording more information at a finer degree, and the only reason...at 100% crop...it looks "worse" than the 40D is simply because the 40D is incapable of capturing enough detail for an even comparison. Normalize the image size with the 40D, and the 7D will always win. You can NEVER get WORSE IQ with more resolution...you can only approach a point where you get diminishing returns for significant increases in cost (and image files that are so huge and contain so many pixels that you don't need all the extra data anyway, even IF your upscaling.) Scale any pair of images from the 7D and 40D down to say 900 pixels long edge, and all that "softness" you see when pixel peeping at 100% will become a total non-issue. Print at 8x10 or 13x19, and the problems you perceive at 100% will also cease to be an issue (well, probably less than 13x19, since the 40D can't actually achieve that natively...maybe 11x16.) You can't compare IQ when viewing a 100%, because you are literally comparing apples to oranges. [/quote]


If that was the only reason, then why is DLA quoted in terms of pixel size? I agree, that a large part of the increased softness is due to looking at a smaller area and more detail, but there are also relationships between the pixel:Airy disk size ratio. When using the 17-40 and 24-105 though, I certainly noticed soft corners (although I also see it on the 5D because of the lack of sweet spot effect from crop sensors).

Quote
According to DXO, the 7D has more DR than the 5D MkII, but I don't actually find it usable, particularly before one of the early firmware updates. You tend to get more colour casts on the 7D and some of my early shots were distinctly pink in the highlight areas.
I much prefer to get it as right as possible in camera and that is why I choose to use grad filters. Many of the landscapes I shoot have upwards of 5 stops difference between the foreground and sky, so even with a 3 stop improvement in DR, I won't be selling off my Lee grad filters any time soon.

Quote
Sure, I'm an advocate of get it right in-camera, too. And "usable DR" is a tough thing to nail down, so experiences differ on that front. I usually have to use my Lee .6 GND, sometimes the .9, and its only in extreme cases where I need to correct more than about 3 stops of contrast different to capture a landscape the way I want to (I don't usually want to capture an unlimited amount of detail in the shadows, I'm happy leaving them dark most of the time.) I think my assertions here about DR play MORE to the whole "get it right in camera" crowd than anyone else though. With more DR, you have more room within which to work...in camera...out in the field, than if you have less DR. With more DR, you have to spend less time fiddling around with physical filtration to get a good shot, meaning that when that moment...that extremely SHORT moment...hits, when light and shadow is absolutely perfect, and your simply agape in awe, you have more time to think about composition, exposure, etc. and get that superb shot...WITHOUT any funky shading because of the need to use graduated filters.
For the shooting that I do, it is variable on what level of filtration I need. When I photograph sunsets, it tends to be with quite dramatic lighting, rather than pastel shades that others prefer. Some such as this one didn't need any grads at all (taken with the 40D a few years ago).

Glowing Waves by Kernuak, on Flickr
Others I need up to 5-6 stops, so end up having to combine filters, although for sake of IQ, I prefer not to. Use of Lee filters has enabled me to use more with less IQ degradation though, in comparison to my old Hi-Tech filters. Also, the 24mm MkII helps :P.

Picnic Table Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr

Anyway, I have some images to process before it's bedtime.

874
EOS Bodies / Re: *UPDATE* Here's an Invite for March 2, 2012
« on: February 29, 2012, 03:59:14 PM »
Along with the coffee, the grip will make it an even bigger seller:

No no no, It needs an instant coffee MAKER... a coffee holder was so 2009 =)
The coffee maker is in the optional grip. The display shows the selected coffee type, although the unit is switched off in the photo 8).

875
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 29, 2012, 03:34:37 PM »
The 7D isn't really suited to landscape work, for more reasons than DR, it can do it, but it doesn't produce the best results. Just like the 5D MkII and wildlife, it can do it, but it isn't its forte. I orignally got my 7D to replace the 40D, but I kept the 40D, following an instance where I missed a shot through only having one body. The plan was to use it for landscape and wildlife, just like I had with the 40D. I had seen some deficiencies with the 40D for landscapes, but as soon as I got the 7D, everything was magnified. L zooms start to look soft on crop cameras due to diffraction and of course, the diffraction limited aperture on the 7D is wider than on the 40D due to the pixel density and interference due to Airey discs. This coupled with the higher resolution show up the softer images more, particularly in the corners (even though the worst performing parts of a lens are cropped out by the sensor). According to DXO, the 7D has more DR than the 5D MkII, but I don't actually find to usable, particularly before one of the early firmware updates. You tend to get more colour casts on the 7D and some of my early shots were distinctly pink in the highlight areas.
I much prefer to get it as right as possible in camera and that is why I choose to use grad filters. Many of the landscapes I shoot have upwards of 5 stops difference between the foreground and sky, so even with a 3 stop improvement in DR, I won't be selling off my Lee grad filters any time soon.

876
EOS Bodies / Re: Here's an Invite for March 2, 2012
« on: February 29, 2012, 08:59:58 AM »
Ps: the little cupcake next to the coffee looks really good  :P

It's a muffin! :-)

In that case 20 Euros :P.

877
EOS Bodies / Re: Here's an Invite for March 2, 2012
« on: February 29, 2012, 08:26:38 AM »
Ps: the little cupcake next to the coffee looks really good  :P

It'll cost you 15 Euro, coffee extra  8)

878
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D + 100-400mm & 400 F5.6
« on: February 28, 2012, 06:03:30 PM »
"'Some people' talk out of their fat backsides", is my impression...

My similar thought didn't make it beyond my brain :P.

879
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D + 100-400mm & 400 F5.6
« on: February 28, 2012, 05:54:10 PM »
Before I got my 7D, I had the 40D, basically the same AF as your 50D. One of the drivers (besides improved noise) was to get improved focusing. It proved it's worth in the first week, with this shot of a kingfisher.


Kingfisher Between the Leaves by Kernuak, on Flickr

The 40D wouild have struggled, as it was a very windy day, with the branches blowing backwards and forwards. While I now use the 300 f/2.8 with a 1.4x extender, this shot was just before the 300 arrived, so was taken with the 100-400. While the 100-400 is quite slow with the AF, the 7D drives it better than any DSLR but the 1 series cameras and it is certainly usable. However slow it may be, it will be quicker than what you're used to.

880
EOS Bodies / Re: Megapixels and such
« on: February 28, 2012, 05:24:10 PM »
There will always be increase in detail levels, but at that size, you'd have to look very hard to see the differences I would think, especially if the printer can't keep up and most people probably wouldn't notice, unless they got an eyeglass out. The biggest advantage though, would be the ability to crop, but if you're using a telephoto and the subject is that far away you need to crop significantly, then there is also a chance that detail could be lost from compression of the pollutants in the atmosphere. It's always better to be as close to a subject as possible (within reason and depending on the type of photography of course).

881
EOS Bodies / Re: If there's no 5D3 Friday...
« on: February 28, 2012, 05:14:10 PM »
While it would be nice to get improved ISO/noise, I'm not planning on a pre-order, I think I'll wait for it to come down in price. Besides, the 70-200 f/2.8 MkII is a higher priority, I already have my 100-400 up for sale (I'm hoping to be able to sell it without eBay, to avoid any potential hassle).

882
Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:46:17 PM »

883
Black & White / Re: Your best Architectural & City B&W shots?
« on: February 28, 2012, 04:44:25 PM »
Some architectural detail.


Church Window Pattern by Kernuak, on Flickr

884
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 27, 2012, 06:36:41 PM »
I have to admit, that I haven't run into problems with pattern noise on either my 7D or 5D MKII, but then I probably don't push the ISO high enough and don't push it in PP either. I tend to keep the both at ISO 1600 or below, although I have pushed the 5D MkII to ISO 6400 on a couple of occasions. Also, when I do shoot at higher ISO, the contrast is lower, so the need for DR is reduced, plus I tend to overexpose slightly, shooting for the highlights, but exposing for the shadows, as much as possible. In addition, when I am in those conditions, I'm not looking for detail in the shadows, as it isn't part of the subject generally. Shooting style plays a large role in the amount of noise visible, as does individual cameras, as they are all different. Despite not seeing banding in my current cameras, I did see it in my old 40D at ISO 1600, which was pushing its limits. That was one thing that I liked about the 7D, as not only did it give cleaner images, the quality of the noise was different.

It's not just about high ISO though, if you need to maximize DR then it's an issue at ISO100 too.
7D tends to have less high ISO banding than the 5D2 or 50D.
That was one of the things that was touted in reviews when the 7D came out and was one of the reasons, I went for it (I didn't have the 5D MkII at the time), having passed on the 50D as having worse noise characteristics than the 40D. I've never had problems with noise on the 5D MkII at ISO 100, but then I don't have the patience to spend hours processing an image, preferring to try to get it as right as possible in camera.

885
Lenses / Re: What happened to the DO lenses?
« on: February 27, 2012, 06:30:35 PM »
But if you compare it to the original EF 400mm f/2.8, that was around 5360g, looking at some places that still have them for sale, so it was a significant weight saving then. The new teles are quite a bit lighter than the originals.

Pages: 1 ... 57 58 [59] 60 61 ... 74