« on: March 01, 2012, 01:55:48 PM »
That looks much better, but have a go at boosting the darks and shadows too.
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.
To me it looks like Canon has got it wrong: it is not "Speed & Quality" what is needed but rather "Quality & Speed".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.
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.
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!)
Sadly, you can clearly tell most of those have used a GND filter or two. But thats exactly my point about DR.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.QuoteSure, 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 .
Picnic Table Sunset by Kernuak, on Flickr
Anyway, I have some images to process before it's bedtime.
The coffee maker is in the optional grip. The display shows the selected coffee type, although the unit is switched off in the photo .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 =)
Ps: the little cupcake next to the coffee looks really good
It's a muffin! :-)
Ps: the little cupcake next to the coffee looks really good
"'Some people' talk out of their fat backsides", is my impression...
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.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.