Messages

46

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cannot Keep Screwing It's Customers Over

« on: January 05, 2013, 03:46:45 AM »

However, if the next iPhone is priced at $1000, it will be considered as overpriced by most people.
Same for Canon products.

Current iPhone is priced at $1000 in the country where I live, lots of people buy it anyway 

Apparently it means "higher priced than the very cheapest third party competitor that offers lenses for the same mount".  Nevermind any cost-cutting by the competitor, such as the three tiny bits of glue that hold the front element of a third-party's 24-70 zoom.   And nevermind any incompatibilities caused by the third party reverse-engineering things.  And nevermind their wrong-direction zooms.  And nevermind any unique characteristics of the Canon offerings, such as the outstanding resolution of the 24-70/2.8 II, the built-in image stabilization of the 35/2 IS, the radio-controlled flash of the 600EX-RT, the variable raw file size and amazing quiet shutter mode of the 5DIII, the amazing 17mm tilt-shift or the 8-15mm fisheye lenses, etc.  It follows from this logic that Canon should be competing on price with everyone else out there, and letting innovation and quality take a backseat to price competition.  If a third-party ever makes a cheapo Canon-mount DSLR, then Canon should downgrade the 1DX and 5DIII to match it, to avoid being "overpriced".  It also means discounting every product from the first day on the market, to avoid any introductory pricing, despite countless other businesses doing the same thing. 

Strong post! +1 on that!

47

Portrait / Re: Happy Holidays Photos!

« on: January 02, 2013, 09:33:18 AM »

A New Year's cake for breakfast 

48

Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]

« on: December 23, 2012, 04:31:58 PM »

the 50L is CRAP.. .. the 85L is the only sub 100mm L that kicks some serious ass..

Interesting.  So, you owned the 50L and, what...chucked it in the bin?  Better bokeh than any Sigma lens and most Canon lenses, but sure...crap.  Maybe intended use, portraits, for example, should be considered?  Naah, you're right it's crap.

You're right about no other sub-100mm L lenses except the 85L being any good, either.  My TS-E 24L II must be crap, too.

+1. 50L is a great tool for an artist, not the best one for making test chart shots. It's all about who you want to be 

49

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX- coated in ice, nice and white, and still clicking

« on: December 15, 2012, 05:16:56 PM »

Sizing down an image adds "anti aliasing" basically. Sharpening counteracts that. Still wondering what u actually mean. If you get jagged edges in your photos maybe ur method of resizing or sharpening is just not good.

Sizing down may add aliasing as well (it depends on the algorithm you use). I was interested in exact reason that led to the issue, to expand my knowledge base 

50

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1DX- coated in ice, nice and white, and still clicking

« on: December 15, 2012, 03:20:22 AM »

How did you get that aliasing on the building? Is it sharpening when changing image size?

51

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 1D X AF in Low Light action

« on: December 13, 2012, 01:22:08 PM »

Try to lower your framerate as 12 fps makes a lot of light lost.

52

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 25, 2012, 11:04:28 AM »

That is what I'm talking about.  We are all going to have a different eye for what compositions touch us the most, but


They breath profits; they eat the interest on money... by @!ex, on Flickr


Electric Sunset at City Park by @!ex, on Flickr

I really like these two 

53

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 24, 2012, 03:17:27 PM »

An interesting thought came to me before I went to bed. Below you'll find an assumption that came suddenly to my head, so please don't take it too seriously.

So... Let's assume there are two cameras with similar color tones reproduction abilities, but with different possible lightness level capturing ability. For example:
- sensor of camera A has 12 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish
- sensor of camera B has 10 stops of DR, 16 billion tones it can distinguish

Having a flat scene (i.e. low DR scene) on a shot we'll push an image with, say, 8 DR to be captured with both sensors. And then both images will be edited in post to retrieve lacking contrast. So we need to add:
- 4 stops for 12-stop camera
- 2 stops for 10-stop camera

So my point is: with lower DR camera we'll have lower tone delta (difference of the initial color tone in the scene with reproduced tone by the sensor) when processing the low DR shot made using lower DR sensor. That happens because of decreased amount of modifications made to the file to achieve required result.

What do you guys think about that?

No. You are thinking about it wrong. It doesn't work like that at all.

All it means is that the camera with more DR has less noise in the lower tones than the other camera. There is no way you can ever lose tones because of that. Whatever you are trying to do you can always exactly match what the other camera can accomplish (plus more things). In fact, since you captured with less noise you have captured MORE distinguishable tones and the captures are linear there is no different expansion you need to do with one camera vs the other, as you compress it to a screen maybe you don't use the extra tones but you won't end up with less and you might end up with more.

Ok. But it doesn't explain me the difference in 1D series and 5D series color integrity when you push image colors, so there's still feeling of incompleteness I was left with 


I've already got one valuable comment on that:

1D series has more expensive electronic chain and also when it comes to shielding etc and 1d series is probably also  better matched in terms of RGB
The old 1dsmk3 has a better response regarding middle tones than 5d mk2 mk3 series an can be seen in a even colored surface.
There also different CFA  in  the old 5d  compared to 5dmk2 mk3 and some experiencing the colors better in the old 5d
Canon changed their color filters  (not so dense ) in order to gain more light/ increasing sensitivity

But there were no refrences to official resources / tests that could tell more.

54

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 24, 2012, 06:22:55 AM »

Touché nightbreath.... Great shot

Sorry, I didn't sign the last photo. It's not mine, I've found it in a social network. It was said that "Baktiar Sontani" is the author of the photo 

55

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 24, 2012, 06:11:03 AM »

I hope that someday I could get a shot with this much dynamic range in a single exposure.  I bracketed 7 shots at 3 EV spacing per bracketed shot.  That is 18 EV spread, but each shot has it's total EV range (minus clipping) so the DR spans almost from pure black to pure white.  My eye saw these images like this, but with a single exposure (including using ND filters) I could never get these shots without increasing the DR of the camera via multiple exposures.  Sorry, not trying to go off topic, just thought it was relevant to the subject.

Shot #1
Shot #2

No offense, but these scenarios look uninspiring to me. And I believe it's not about how you or I see it, it's about everyone's way of thinking towards DR that makes HDR overused by lots of photographers around the world.

I believe that HDR imaging has its own niche, but it should be used when the result doesn't tell you whether it's HDR or not. So better scenes is what really matters for me (rather than increased DR):

56

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 24, 2012, 05:26:40 AM »

Is there a web-site where I can look at your friend's photos to check why someone chooses high DR cameras?

He's a wedding photographer, I don't think he publishes his pictures online, he gives them to his customers.
But the usual scenario he was referring to was: very sunny day, bride in shiny white, broom in matte black suit with subtle stripes, anything except his fuji (or, now, D800) will result in said suit looking like a black blotch, and there's nothing he can do about it.

Something like the one I've attached? Shot in the middle of the day. So it's another reason why I've started the discussion. Because I don't understand why everyone is so tempted about DR possibilities when everything depends on technique.

P.S. It's not one of the best shots from this day, I've just used one with hasrh shadows.

* if you're going to have issues with "too much DR, not enough gradation", they'll be in the very deep shadows, which you wouldn't see anyway if you were shooting with a camera with the same ADC but less DR; your skin tones are unlikely to land anywhere below the 5th stop from the top, so for them you have way more values than you need (anything above 50 gradations per stop is usually smooth even after heavy grading)

As far as I understand each camera applies it's own tone curve to the image, or am I wrong?

Initially I wanted to be brand-agnostic and instead of discussing specific sensors, I want to identify what really matters for my needs (and maybe many others). I'm not able to tell what it is right now, so everyone's input is appreciated 

57

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 24, 2012, 02:12:49 AM »

If the number of gradations accurately recorded within a 10 stop dynamic range is the same as the number of gradations accurately recorded within a 14 stop dynamic range, then the 10-stop camera has more precision and better image quality _within that 10-stop interval of light intensity_ versus the 14-stop camera. But outside that 10-stop range, the 10-stop camera has zero image quality, and so the 14-stop camera wins hands-down.

And that's why I've started the topic. To my understanding my near-12-stop DR camera is perfect for my work and I would think twice before getting next Canon released camera that might have bigger DR with the same number of gradations resolving power.

58

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 23, 2012, 05:46:30 PM »

There are some usage models for which DR is important, there are many usage models for which it doesn't matter at all. If the scene you have in front of you doesn't require more than 8 stops of DR, you're fine with a camera that can capture that, no point in going for one that is the same in every respect but will record 14 stops of DR.

If your portraits are in a studio, with a standard backdrop, your DR needs will probably be pretty modest. If your portraits happen in other less-controlled locations, you may have very high DR needs (e.g. if you want to take a portrait of someone in their bedroom, and there's a window in an interesting area). Wedding photographers take lots of portraits, and, not having a lot of control over their shooting scenarios, they usually need a lot of DR (for this reason, a friend of mine was still using his Fuji S3 pro as his backup body up until the D800 came out: a 12 mpix camera from 2005... with 13.5 stops of DR as measured by dxomark).

In any case, ADC precision will only be a problem if the manufacturer screws up the sensor-ADC matching. No current camera has that issue AFAIK.

I have only few times felt lack of DR in my camera. And that was before I really used to getting the pictures I won't delete later. There are several techniques to get the shot you need the way you want to see it.

Is there a web-site where I can look at your friend's photos to check why someone chooses high DR cameras?

59

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 22, 2012, 04:46:22 PM »

dynamic range is not how many shades you have on your color space
it is related to real-world things: how much brighter can one object be than another, while the camera still captures them both correctly at the same time

And that's why I ask  . Why would I need DR for portraits? It is what I mainly do with my cameras as wedding photographer, so number of shades sensor produces is more important than DR 

60

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Too much dynamic range?

« on: November 21, 2012, 11:20:33 AM »

I'm waiting for someone smart to chime in and describe whether my initial thought can affect real life shooting, or whether there's something important we don't pay much attention to. One of things that may be related to the topic and was confirmed by several photographers is:

difference in color tones reproduction of 1D vs. 5D lines

Even if you take 1D Mark IV, the pixels are better suited to color modification than those from 5D Mark III. Similar thing is mentioned in 1D X review here:

One odd thing I’ve noticed before, now definitely in this test- there’s a big difference in how the 5D series and 1D series interprets shadows. The 5D2 notoriously expresses shadow detail with a purple hue and the 5D3 shows this trend still continues; whereas the 1D4 has to be pushed to its limits before the purple shows up in the shadows. I thought this was mostly due to the crop sensor excluding the lens edges, but the 1Dx- full frame- follows the trend of the 1D4 by not degrading shadows with purple hues. I’ve asked a Canon rep why this is and he’s forwarded it on up to a uber-geeky tech, so hopefully we’ll get an explanation about this. It certainly stands to reason that color-integrity in the shadows is a perk of paying for the higher model, but I’d still like to know what’s the difference. I’ll let you know if we get an answer.