November 28, 2014, 01:13:51 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 - mrmarks

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11
16
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 10, 2013, 08:23:51 PM »
I'm sure there are some people for whom one single feature is so critical that it's the only one that matters, but for most, it's important to consider the whole camera...

+1

The whole system including lenses and flash system

17
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:44:28 AM »
What really matters is what sort of photography you can do with it and so far we haven't been treated to any earth shattering breakthroughs in image making as a result of these two stops of additional DR.  If it was as significant as some would have us believe, then we would easily be able to walk into any gallery and pick out the Nikon images from the Canon ones – but we cannot.  We continue to be treated to the same me tired, contrived examples that are completely devoid of any artistic value whatsoever and I doubt that THIS will change even if Canon were to come out with a 15 stop camera.

You hit the nail on the head.

18
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 11:40:31 AM »
The human eye is estimated to be able to see detail across a range of 12 stops, or so, but that is estimated as without the iris adjusting, so a fair comparison to a single image. Our inbuilt aperture works so well, fast and automatically, that we can actually see detail in scenes far wider than that.

Cameras, in a single shot in RAW, can record detail across around 12 stops, some a little better, some a little worse. Now if you shoot jpeg you can only record 8 stops. When you shoot RAW 12 bit you get a potential 12 stops. True 14 bit has a ceiling of 14 stops. No camera that records in 14 bits can possibly record detail across more than 14 stops. Until camera manufacturers start releasing true 16 bit RAW files we won't see any genuine increases in DR.

Monitors display around 8 stops, very close to jpegs hence the standard. Monitor range is very dependent on ambient light, if your monitor is in a bright room it loses DR, if it is in a dark room it gets some of that lose back, but never more than the 8 or so stops.

Prints are down in the 6 stop range, this is entirely dependent on paper reflectivity and the amount of light thrown onto the print. Think about it, in a dark room a print has zero stops of discernible data!

Now this is just a very brief generalisation, each minutia could be argued about ad nausea. I am not interested.

Further to say 32 bit prints must look painterly is not true, it all depends where the ranges of interesting detail fall within the scene. For instance, if you shoot an interior but are interested in holding  detail outside in the sunlight, the detail outside might be 5 stops higher, but there will be very little info between the two, you can then compress the area between the inside and outside without introducing painterly qualities. Very few scenes with huge dynamic range have smooth histograms, most have several peaks where the interesting stuff is, all you are doing is bringing those interesting bits back within displayable ranges.

This is an example of that, to retain the clouds and sky I have lowered the top end, but there are very few tones between the room and the outside that were compressed, so no "un-natural" look.

Thanks for the great info!

19
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 05:14:04 AM »
Bottom line, unless you are viewing the final result on some kind of very exotic, purpose-built, lighted device (whether back or front-lit)...then a picture with a lot of stops of DR...once it is printed on any kind of paper, will necessarily look "painterly".  As in, you are reduced to seeing very few stops of DR with a printed image.  However, even a printed image can in some ways exceed the information your computer monitor is able to display.  It just looks less bright, less vivid...than a lighted display device.  It gets dynamically compressed.

Under normal room lighting, my prints usually look a lot darker, duller, and less colorful, than they did on the computer screen (let alone if the room lighting isn't of neutral color temperature).  Hold the print up close to a good light, and it looks a lot closer to what was on the screen.  View it outdoors in the sunlight (preferably slightly diffuse), and it can also look close.

It's important when editing (and then printing) pictures, to allow for how they will usually be lit, wherever they wind up being hung, or displayed.  If the final destination is only electronic on the web, then you have one less variable...but of course other considerations. 

But you're never going to see 14 stops of DR, no matter what it is viewed on.  Your eye saw more than that as you took the shot, so just try to remember that as you ponder the picture, and enjoy it.

So what would be a typical DR range of a LCD display and a print?

20
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:29:17 AM »
FWIW, here's a comparison done in 2006 with a 5D body between the  f1.2 and f1.4 http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

21
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
« on: January 16, 2013, 12:01:55 AM »
How does the IQ of the 70-200L2.8II compare with the non-IS version? Anyone done a comparison with both lenses on a FF body? Thanks

22
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 15, 2013, 10:54:22 AM »
I sold the f1.4 some time after getting the f1.2.

23
If you look on the lens market today the most versions with IS (VC) can´t reach the non IS (VC) versions in image quality.

That´s why I prefer the EF 24-70 2.8 II.

Is this true for the 70-200 2.8 IS II vs the non-IS version?

24
Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« on: January 15, 2013, 08:23:45 AM »
erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.

25
Lenses / Re: How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:12:31 PM »
I have 5 L lenses and never had any "real" issues with them to justify a return, even after thousands of shots. I did AFMA tests on all of them and none really had any need for any adjustment with my 5D2 and 5D3 bodies.

26
Abstract / Re: Beautiful bokeh! Let me see yours!
« on: January 10, 2013, 08:20:46 AM »

_MG_6789 by marksmike, on Flickr

27
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 25, 2012, 08:51:08 PM »
Any estimates of the weight of the 24-70 f2.8 IS ?

28
Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS Exists as a Working Prototype [CR2]
« on: December 20, 2012, 08:12:12 PM »
I am quite happy with my 24-70L2. Whether I get the 24-70L2IS will depend on the IQ difference between both lenses, and the weight/bulk difference as well.

29
Voted yes but it's not a uv filter but a clear filter. No need for uv filter (cuts off light unnecessarily) as the sensor has a uv coating, and a good clear filter does not affect IQ. I'm using B+W xs-pro clear MRC filter on all my lenses.

30
The 50L 1.2 design doesn't seem to have a floating element. Wonder how this will be better than the current 50L 1.2

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 11