October 01, 2014, 07:03:18 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 - sarangiman

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:38:54 AM »
I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this.
Nice cop out, way to go.

Yes, that's it, I'm copping out. It couldn't possibly be that I've chosen to stop responding to certain people who are quicker to retort than to re-evaluate their position. That will come up with any justification so as to not have to change their long held tenets.

Let's take a look at some examples of this illogical, unreasonable sentiment over the years... kind of like a 'Greatest Hits.' This is literally stuff from 2-3 years ago:

  • I present clear full-resolution side-by-sides images of a Nikon 14-24 vs. Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II showing just how much better the 14-24 is. Which, actually, has been well known for a while - nothing ground-breaking here. And yet it was claimed it was an invalid comparison b/c the shots were taken minutes apart & the lighting had changed. Yes, b/c the lighting would've totally reversed these results:


    The Canon gets better by f/11, but still can't keep up with the Nikon at f/2.8:



    But that was just impossible to believe, so any excuse was made to invalidate the claim. Then I even backed it up with data from lenstip that I plotted, showing that they found that the Canon lens' extreme performance can never, at any aperture, catch up to the Nikon's extreme performance wide open:



    Hmm... sounds strangely reminiscent of the real-world images I presented. But, hey, I'm still wrong, you know b/c the lighting was a little off. Or something.

    Oh, and btw, now it's totally OK to say the new Canon 16-35 f/4L rocks compared to the old f/2.8L. B/c Canon can beat Canon, but Nikon can't. No way.

  • Oh, and remember this whole fiasco?

    Apparently, that was all wrong, according to jrista, b/c the highlights weren't close enough to clipping in the G/B channels and ACR could've recovered more had I exposed more. That made it worthy of comments like 'DON'T BUY INTO THIS BULL PPL!!'. Yes, b/c giving it a half stop more exposure before the red channel completely blew would've *totally* changed the outcome of this test - which was designed to show that the Nikon still gives you more highlight headroom for scenes with more DR than this one. And believe it or not, the above isn't even a high DR scene. A higher DR scene is when clouds light up 20 minutes *after* sunset, glowing bright (and requiring shorter exposures) from the last light of the sun, while the foreground is dark b/c there's no direct light hitting it. You know, what landscape photographers always like to shoot. But I guess I should waited months, years, until I happened to sample that sunrise/sunset, before I posted my results, right? Because *that* would've made the comparison valid. And this is entirely invalid, and *doesn't* demonstrate that the Nikon gives you significantly more room for brighter highlights and higher DR scenes. No, this doesn't demonstrate that at all. Again, any argument you can find so you can continue to engage in your confirmation bias.

  • I'm not even going to get into the vehement back and forth when I pointed out that a Nikon or 1D X with a separate color sensor can stay locked onto subjects in more robust scenarios than a 5D3. Apparently, I was mistaken b/c I didn't RTFM, not b/c an actual separate sensor that can 'see' color/subjects could actually help track subjects better than a system simply working off of a depth map of the AF points.

    Silver lining there was that some people did come out & say something to the effect of 'that's really cool, my 5D3 can't do that'. And I'll be glad if even one person learned what I learned there when I first discovered it - a new tool that seriously helped my work and creative spark.

Do you see a pattern here? I don't have an agenda for one brand or the other here. I'm just pointing out the things I discovered about other systems (Nikon and Sony) as I explored them, having been a Canon shooter for decades. You can argue that Canon offers other benefits. I argue that myself, like the wireless flash, the cross-type AF points, lenses, etc. But that's not even what most of you argue. You argue that my entire demonstration or point is invalid, b/c then at least you can rest in comfort knowing that the system you love has not adequately been challenged by this farce of "evidence". You say I should've stopped down my prime to zoom-level apertures, or underexposing images by 4 stops has never been sound practice in the history of photography*. All of which miss my point: better technology opens up creative doors and, yes, challenges the status quo of what's existed for years.

Me? I can accept when my equipment fails in certain respects. I accepted it for years with Canon, until I found both Nikon and Sony work better for me. And now I have to accept the shortcomings for these systems which, fortunately, are less serious than what I dealt with when it came to Canon. Do I not realize the shortcomings of my new systems? Nope. A7R shutter shock & lossy compressions are serious issues, nevermind its focus compared to pro-level DSLRs. Nikon's lack of cross-type points leads to serious hunting at times with off-center points. I suppose if I posted these comments on Sony & Nikon forums, I'd be told to RTFM. But I guess you guys here will just eat it up. B/c as long as it's 'point: Canon', it's A-OK.

You can't say anything against your god (Canon) when it comes to certain people in this crowd. There is no room for debate or conversation with you folks. So I choose to stop.

What's incredibly stupid on my part is expending as much effort as I already have. Perhaps it'll be of some benefit to bystanders reading the thread who are otherwise mislead by people's assertions that:

  • Underexposing by 3 stops or more has never been sound in the history of photography, and so never will (Reality: It is now, especially if it's done by only changing the level of ISO amplification. Not only is it sound, it's the only sensible thing to do if you want stops and stops of highlight headroom).
  • Did you process your file in DPP? B/c that magically gives you more DR! (Reality: No it doesn't, it just applies more NR, which you could do to Nikon files as well - so the DR differences predicted by DxO really are real...)
  • Canon still has the advantage when it comes to ISO performance (Reality: Nope, that would be Sony and medium format now).
  • Yeah but the 1D X and 6D still have more high ISO DR than Exmor, so there! (Reality: Nope, not if you know how to use your camera appropriately... Exmor can maintain its low ISO DR at higher ISOs)
.

Innocent bystanders: don't buy these myths. Try stuff out for yourself. Push technology. Push horizons. Discover. Have fun.

And now, Neuro, go ahead and keep bullying people asking for lens cap shots, even though those are the simplest, quickest way to get an idea of sensor-level read noise for a newly released camera without asking some unknown person to actually set up a controlled test. I know you can't imagine how that might be valuable, so you should continue making fun of people who actually know how to utilize that data to determine early on if a camera is worth pre-ordering. That's totally an acceptable form of behavior, on the internet anyway.

*And yet shooting at ISO 1600 - which deprives the sensor of 4 stops of light compared to ISO 100 in the traditional sense - is OK... hmm perhaps zlatko didn't understand that changing the ISO setting on your camera doesn't actually change the native sensitivity of the sensor. All it does is amplify the data. Well, me raising the exposure +4 stops is 'amplifying the data' - just at a different step of signal processing. Why is one valid and the other not? And that's the point - it *is* valid for Nikon/Exmor, just not for Canon, where you have to amplify early on. So this requires a shift in thinking, and it doesn't change my point: being able to amplify later is advantageous b/c it gives you stops and stops of highlight headroom, essentially giving you the full DR of the sensor at higher ISOs (there are limitations at extremely high ISOs, but I won't go into that here).

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 24, 2014, 02:37:58 AM »
As I've always said, if you want to lift data by this amount the Exmor is substantially better. ( Though if you were comparing your 1DsIII the latest Canons are better).

However I never do so for myself it's not an issue.

Fair enough. Just realize that anyone who says 'I don't need to lift shadows' cannot also say: 'I want more high ISO DR'.

B/c underexposing by dialing down the ISO is *exactly* how to get higher DR at higher ISOs. Just not with Canon.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 06:50:59 PM »
You can certainly talk the talk, but after all this typing and in put from others I don't see this can continue until you post the full, original image as many of us have requested. Mask the faces if necessary as suggested by PBD. You've made all sorts of allegations against the 5DIII not coping with the situation: let's see the full picture.

What, and risk having his claims invalidated?  Why would he do that?   ::)

I'd do that if it were even remotely possible that something constructive would come out of any of this. I've done it in the past and it's just like arguing with fundamentalists - you always have an answer for everything. I remember when I presented side-by-sides of the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II vs. the Nikon 14-24 on the same body, clearly showing huge differences in edge sharpness, and it was argued that the entire test was invalid b/c the Canon lens had too much flare. (1) Ok, that's a characteristic of the lens then in that scenario; (2) despite flare, the difference in sharpness was so obvious you'd have to be blind not to see it. Yet people argued away... and now that the 16-35 f/4L is out, it's OK to say that's much better at the edges/corners than the f/2.8 II (as many people/sites have said/shown), but, no, it's not OK to say the *gasp* Nikon is better, now is it? Obviously there was something wrong with my test. Like Canon's design that led to more flare that still didn't change any of the conclusions...

Oh and about your constant making fun of lens cap shots - one would've thought that as a scientist you might understand controlled testing. It gives you the stdev for the lowest signal, which allows you to extrapolate certain things.

If you don't understand it, move along.

I made my point ages ago. Some get it, some don't. That's fine. Unsubscribing from this thread.

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 04:42:11 AM »
I'm talking about normalized Raw performance, which has seen very, very small gains. Save for at the highest ISOs (e.g. 25.6k and above), where lowering sensor-level (upstream) read noise actually affects image quality, since you're amplifying the raw signal off the sensor so much (b/c the signal is so, so small).

Otherwise, ISO performance is largely dictated by sensor size these days.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:30:46 AM »
I can appreciate that, but that doesn't mean you are not compromising by using it at f/1.4. Knowing what those compromises is important.
Your example is poor, perhaps if you had started with a different lens in a different situation you could demonstrate your point.

I knew of that compromise. What is hard to predict ahead of time - you know me not being a computer and all - is exactly where I'd run into the noise floor.

And that's what's so nice about Exmor - you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things, like focus, or capturing the decisive moment.

My example is not poor, it's just irrelevant to you. I've posted examples of other use-cases, and gotten answers like 'well I don't shoot that high DR scene', or 'you could've just used a GND', or 'oh you already used a GND? well you could've HDR'd it then'...

My point here is that you can always have an answer as to how you could've done it differently.

Doesn't detract from the main point: this is one less thing I have to worry about now.

These same arguments are constantly recycled. The same sentiments were thrown around during the digital vs. film debate.

As for sharing the whole file - no point. I did years ago when I showed this same problem with fixing vignetting with the 24/1.4 on my then newly acquired 5D3. And it was the same thing. Some people got it and agreed it was unfortunate, others said I should've used a flash or just accepted the vignetting, etc. And all those comments still missed the main point - I wanted available light only for that shot, and I generally don't mind vignetting but for that particular shot I didn't care for it. But I didn't have the choice to take out the vignetting, b/c of the ugly banding that ensued.

There's really no point - I just saw jrista arguing thread after thread about how he'd like to simplify his workflow by not having to resort to HDR every single time. It's the same argument here - I'd like to not be so constrained by my system when there are better options out there.

I didn't consider Nikon to be a better option until enough factors swayed me. Like not designing the grip for elf hands, for example (that one's for you, jrista).

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 01:15:09 AM »
OK, but you left out the improvement in high ISO performance and that has something to do with sensor design.  That for me has been very real and very valuable.  I'm more interested in that than in low ISO dynamic range and fixing extreme underexposure.  Of course I'm in favor of improved dynamic range too.  But in the meantime, I'm very happy with what they are making.

That's totally fair if that's what's important to you. Personally, I think the marginal gains in ISO performance are almost nothing next to the drastic differences in base ISO DR and the types of shots they afford me. Arguing about 1/3 EV ISO performance differences when there are 3 stop DR differences is a little funny to me, but of course it all depends on your application. But seriously, if it's acceptable for people to be happy about 1/3 EV gains in ISO performance, you'd think it'd be OK for some of us to make a big fuss over 3 EV DR differences. But that's just, like, my opinion, dude.

Just FYI - improving low ISO DR does not come at the cost of ISO performance. Canon increases in low ISO DR will likely come when they start using on-chip ADCs (on the imaging sensor itself). But that requires new fab. The idea is to digitize the signal as early on as possible, so as to minimize potential interference.

I'm sure it'll come - especially b/c Canon is interested in the motion picture industry... and there most DPs clamor for more DR. More DR than what the state-of-the-art already offers there (e.g. in the Arri Alexa), which is already much more than what Canon offers. Canon tried to increase their DR performance on the Cinema EOS somewhat by pixel-binning G channels, which seemed to me to be a rather convoluted way of overcoming their high read noise. But I'm guessing it's very cost-intensive for them to actually switch to on-chip ADCs. Or something.

Interestingly, once you drastically increase low ISO DR, you can also effectively increase high ISO DR if the photographer chooses to dial back the ISO setting manually and then selectively raise the exposure - while protecting highlights - in post-processing.

It's a bit too much to get into here, but I'm sure you'll hear more people talking about it soon, if not already, on more technical forums.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:41:27 AM »
My highlights are OK, thank you.  Not the problem you make it out to be.

Yes, your example is all about DR at low ISO ... that's why I said I'm not against progress in this area.  I just don't see it as this big system-switching issue when it's so easy to deal with in situations like the one you described in your crop.  That's assuming one doesn't have extreme requirements like shooting a wide lens at f/1.4 with no vignetting, no blown highlights, nothing black in the background, not using any fill, etc.

You seem determined to deal with that situation with an Exmor sensor and no other way.  It's good that you have found your solution.

Yes, b/c it helps in this regard, as well as in other regards. Like for my landscapes. Like for significantly higher high ISO DR than what Canon offers when you shoot 'ISO-less' with Exmor.

And like I said earlier, the other major reason was the AF system, along with a number of other features which were icing on the cake.

Making it sound like I switched systems just so I could not get vignetting at f/1.4 is obtuse and unreasonable, and you know that.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:38:30 AM »
Sweet spot in most aspects, yes. If you knew the lens you would know that.

If you are using Nikon's 24mm f/1.4 perhaps you are seeing the difference in lenses since it has 2 less stops of vignetting. The argument could be made that the lens is superior and it has nothing to do with the sensor.
But the comparison you wanted to make was sensors wasn't it.
But I bought the lens to use it for shallow DOF, not use it at it's sweet spot. Can you appreciate/understand that?

I know very well the Canon 24/1.4 needs a massive update. It's resolution & vignetting are sub-par next to other offerings, *especially* what I'm sure Sigma will offer in an Art series lens. The 35mm Sigma Art blows away the rather outdated Canon 35L, for example.

This is not about a lack of understanding, it's about *choices*.

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:36:11 AM »
And I never said I hated vignetting. I very much like it, when appropriate.

I just thought it'd be particularly poignant to point out that sometimes simply enabling the profile corrections for your lens' vignetting in ACR will lead to FPN/noise with Canon systems. In the photo above, simply enabling profile corrections will show visible FPN, even without the exposure push.

And btw, the photo could've used even more underexposure to actually save all of the sky: a large patch is still blown and unrecoverable by ACR.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:28:48 AM »
Adams did not like the blown highlights or the fact that he didn't have any fill light that day.  But he didn't trash the photo and blame Kodak.  Instead, he made a good photo under the circumstances.  No doubt he used a sensible processing technique.
And so have I. I've worked around the limitations for years, having shot Canon for 2 decades. I even shot slide film and worked around that with multiple GNDs. What's your point? Exmor still makes my life much, much easier so I can focus on other aspects of my creative work.
I'm all in favor of progress in photographic technology, but very shallow depth of field with zero vignetting seems like your personal definition of progress. 
You're taking my one example in isolation. I've quoted many advantages of low base ISO DR; this is just the one I've posted here. My definition of 'progress' is an advancement that only offers advantages and no disadvantages. That's what Exmor offers over a Canon sensor (notice I said 'sensor', not 'system').

My definition of 'progress' here is entirely sound.
Stopping down to f/2.8 to avoid the vignetting that you so dislike is "comical"?  I would describe it as sensible, obvious, reasonable, etc. ... maybe not comical.  And this is "comical" because it's a prime lens and prime lenses should not be stopped down?  OK ... again, I think you have some personal definitions of these things that don't match mine.  It's great that the D810 serves your needs, however.

B/c obliterating the *only* reason I bought the prime, and shoot with 3 primes rather than one zoom lens, is, yes, 'comical'.

Perhaps you don't know of photographers who buy primes solely b/c of their shallow DOF capabilities (tied in with their light gathering abilities)?

And yes, people do have different needs - imagine that. I buy primes to shoot them primarily near wide open (within reason: I won't shoot people dancing on a dance floor in the dark at f/1.4, where I have no control over where they'll be in the next instant, for example).

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 23, 2014, 12:12:36 AM »
You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?

Because at ISO 2000 I don't get the noise you're showing in your ISO 100 example.  I don't.

And I don't get the noise I showed in my example at ISO 100 w/ Exmor, but I get 4.5 EV of additional headroom compared to ISO 2000 (on either Canon or Nikon).

And that's the entire point. B/c with Canon's read noise, you're *required* to pre-amplify your data rather than amplify it in post-processing. And this costs you highlights.

I don't think I'm going to be able to explain this to you in forum posts.

Dynamic range at low ISO is important and I'm not against progress in that area, but it's just one of a few hundred things that are important in a system.

Now you're last point is seriously questionable.  Fill flash or a reflector would raise the exposure on your subject, bringing it closer to the exposure for the sky.  Subject and sky are the two elements that were seemingly important in your exposure deliberations.  So why are you software-boosting the exposure on a dark background?  That's like banging your head against the wall and then complaining to the doctor that your head hurts.

But my example is all about DR at low ISO... how can you say you do care about low ISO DR and then say my example is completely invalid? The background trees/grass that have noise/FPN is a classic example of low DR. I'm honestly completely perplexed at your thinking.

Why am I boosting exposure on a dark background? B/c trees aren't black in real life. The background is dark b/c I *chose* to underexpose in that example to keep the sky from clipping.

More dynamic range is a good thing, but the examples and arguments you have laid out are not sound. Your examples flawed with poor technique and understanding of your gear. The sweet spot of the 24mm f/1.4 L II is at f/2 shooting at f/1.4 you deserved to have a bad picture.

Perhaps you should find a better example to make your point.

What's not sound is telling someone who wants the shallowest DOF and most subject isolation he can get to shoot one stop stopped down - bringing you half of the way from that prime to an f/2.8 zoom. Negating literally half of the prime's advantage when it comes to DOF.

I completely understand my gear - perhaps a bit too well - which is why I also understand it doesn't meet my needs.

Sweet spot? Sweet spot for what? Resolution? Vignetting? I want the most subject isolation I can get and you're telling me to stop down my lens, effectively to that of a zoom (to whoever mentioned to go down to f/2.8 )? So then remind me why I'm carrying 3 primes on a belt & constantly swapping between them rather than just slapping on a 24-70 f/2.8L II? For a marginal increase in sharpness - an attribute I'm not trying to optimize for?

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:24:57 PM »
Fill flash is a very, very common technique.  Set properly, it adds very little light and doesn't create an unnatural look.

As I mentioned last year on this forum, Ansel Adams had a similar issue in his "Martha Porter, Pioneer Woman" portrait.  Adams was a master of the technical aspects of photography, but for this portrait he didn't use a reflector or flash.  Even so, he made a strong and memorable portrait by exposing for his subject (in shadow) and letting the highlights overexpose.

Right, which is what I did, as I explained earlier:

And if you must know - I shot multiple exposures & have one shot with 2 stops more exposure where the noise is acceptable in the subjects, but of course the sky is completely blown. My *point* is that I wouldn't have had to with a good sensor.

Still doesn't detract from my original point: I wouldn't have even had to 'bracket'. And I'm sure no one has ever, ever accidentally underexposed an image b/c the meter overreacted to a backlight and the photographer didn't have time to check the image amidst the action he/she was trying to capture. No, I bet that never happens.

And as for choosing between shallow DOF or vignetting - it's always been one or the other with primes, right, so that's how it should remain forever of course!

But seeing that argument you just made makes me realize you're simply arguing against progress, so there's really no point in me continuing this line of conversation.

You're essentially saying that Ansel Adams worked around the limitation, so so should we. Even when technology is available that allows us to not have to work around it. And completely ignoring the fact that Ansel Adams developed many of his own techniques to get around input/output DR limitations.

But I'm sure if back then a new film came out with higher DR and *no* other disadvantages, that he'd have said 'nah, I'll just use the old film and work around the limitations.'

Right...

Suggesting I stop my prime down to f/2.8 was particularly comical. You're saying I'm expecting too much of technology, yet the the D810 meets those expectations, and I'm just making that known, but you're still saying I'm expecting too much of technology.

Except... I'm not, b/c there's already tech out there that meets (at least those) needs.

At this point it's just like arguing with fundamentalist conservatives: I just can't understand the anti-progress sentiment, so I give up.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 11:11:34 PM »
Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4.  So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors.  Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work.  Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure.  For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.

Also - when one sensor outperforms another in every measurable aspect, it is, by definition, a 'better' sensor.

There's no self-serving redefining going on here...

Shooting around ISO 2000 is more than acceptable to me with cameras like the 5D3 and 6D with basic processing in Lightroom.  ISO 2000 looks sweet and definitely does't show the artifacts you're showing in that crop.  But then I'm not underexposing by 1.5 stops and then fixing 3 stops of vignetting.

With a Canon, you have to actually shoot at ISO 2000 to *not* get the sort of artifacts I'm showing. With an Exmor sensor, you can keep the shutter speed/aperture at whatever ISO 2000 would've required, but just dial the ISO down to, say, ISO 400, and give yourself 2.5 EV highlight headroom, with little to no noise cost. If you did that with Canon, you'd have more noise than if you'd shot ISO 2000 to begin with.

In other words, ISO 400 + 2.5 EV in post is noisier than ISO 2000. With Exmor, it's generally not. Again, assuming shutter speed/aperture are the same (shooting Manual).

What this means is that you can have far more highlight headroom under situations requiring higher ISOs (faster shutter speeds, smaller apertures). B/c with Exmor, there's very little difference in underexposing by X stops and then pushing the exposure in post.

You do realize that ISO 2000 generally deprives the sensor of 4.5 stops of light compared to ISO 100, yes? So if you think that shooting ISO 2000 (full-frame) is fine, how can you think that shooting ISO 100 at -4.5 EV is unreasonable if the camera shows similar performance with ISO 100 + 4.5EV vs ISO 2000?


44
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:52:05 PM »
The same sunlight and the same contrast range has existed since the beginnings of photography.  Fortunately, photographers developed various good techniques for handling the very same problems that you encountered.  For 150+ years, underexposing by 5 stops was never one of them.
Right, exactly, and that's the wonder of technological progress. It opens up freedom and opportunities.

Or are you one of those that still thinks slide film had enough (input) DR?

Now a sensor comes along that lets you underexpose your subjects and then completely fix that underexposure, which you also combine with full software correction of extreme corner vignetting of a wide angle lens shot at f/1.4.  So you now define that sensor as a "good" sensor and all other sensors as, well, not good sensors.  Sorry, but that self-serving re-definition doesn't work.  Canon makes perfectly "good sensors" — good for photographers who don't rely on radical underexposure.  For whatever reason, Canon has aligned their product with the priorities of other photographers.
No, they haven't 'aligned' anything. They just have chosen not to update their sensor fab/design.

When something introduces noise into your signal, it's not 'aligning' with those people who don't need cleaner signals. It's just not evolving.

You wouldn't say a noisier analog tape back in the day was 'aligning' with any particular crowd, now, would you?

I understand how these sensors/cameras work well enough *not* to make fundamentally bad decisions that lead to the problem you're showing in that crop.  I certainly wouldn't switch systems over a self-created and easily avoidable problem.

You still just don't fundamentally understand the idea of better technology opening up creative potential. I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of those that looks at light field technology and is like 'who needs to refocus?' - ignoring all the revolutionary possibilities that tech brings.

Using reflectors/flash and changing your the nature of the light is one way to deal with this problem, sure. Overexposing and just letting the sky blow is another one (which is what I did, in this situation, in a separate shot). Switching systems for this and many other benefits is another.

All are valid solutions. You really can't argue that the last option above doesn't open up doors, though.

And all of you with your solutions and suggestions - have you never, ever had an underexposed image by mistake b/c of, say, strong backlight? And you were shooting so fast to capture the moment that you didn't have a chance to correct the exposure on the spot?

If you've never encountered this situation, you're either unreasonably good, or a liar.

Also - you do realize a flash/reflector would've done nothing for the noise and banding in the background, right?

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 22, 2014, 10:36:01 PM »
I get it that the D810 sensor is nifty.
But, why didn't you use a fill flash on that? It would have solved all of your problems, and you should probably have a flash on your camera at all times for outdoor portraits, especially weddings.
Were you just trying to rescue a bad error?
This is a legitimate question. Fill flash for outdoor portraits, pretty standard.

Huh? Who set that standard (re: fill flash being 'standard')?

I had two 600EX-RT flashes on me and an emitter. I chose not to use it here (but used it later) b/c I didn't want unnatural lighting for this particular shot.

You do realize that fill & flashes create the sense of a separate light source that doesn't make that much sense when you have the sun behind your subjects, right?

That said, it can still create some cool & dramatic lighting, which I've used for environmental portraits.

I just didn't want it in this shot.

Why you're asking something so OT to my original point, is a better question.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24