October 24, 2014, 02:20:08 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 - Maui5150

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28
Canon General / Does "Banding" exist
« on: October 17, 2014, 11:36:45 AM »
the new crappy iMac 5K display got me thinking.

This iMac is 8-bit color (16.7 million) where monitors like the one I use are 1.07 Billion (10-bit color per channel)

To achieve an environment capable of 1 Billion plus colors, you need more than a monitor, you need a capable video card as well as you need applications capable of running 30-bit vs the standard 24.  some earlier versions of Photoshop, for example were not 30-bit capable

A simple way of seeing if you are capable of 30-bit are images like this

My monitor at work shows banding... at home it is crisp and clean gradient that is as smooth as butter.

Got me thinking.  Always hear about the 5d MK III has banding, the Nikon D810 has banding... on and on. 

Is this banding on the sensor, or like, in the image above, is it the LCD screen on back of camera, or even that pricey monitor that only handles 8-bits per channel

Not saying that issues may not exist, but would be curious if when people are doing reviews, pixel peeping images and the like, more quantitatively environmental variables were specified. 

I have really seen no issues with banding with my 5D MK III, then again, most of the time I am in a 30-bit environment

Just food for thought

It is a POS!  Who cares about a 5K display if it is only sRGB

What is the colour space of the Internet and almost every computer screen? sRGB.

Funny.  Most of the professionals I know are using wide gamut monitors.

Most of the people out there don't use color calibration either.

In the end you must decide what you value.

Does it matter?

I would much rather shoot in RAW and work with a full color calibrated atmosphere and see the difference of color depths, than work in a downscaled sRGB environment. 

And yes, I do down scale and convert the images I post to the web to the sRGB color space, but the base of all I do is Adobe RGB.

I would much prefer having a 4K Asus ART monitor with 1.07 Billion colors than a 5K iMac Retina with 16.7 Million colors.

color and color depth are kind important

And why would I want an sRGB monitor????

It is a POS!  Who cares about a 5K display if it is only sRGB

"5120‑by‑2880 resolution with support for millions of colors"

Millions?  What about BILLIONS... like 1.07 Billion give or take to be exact.

This is the problem I see with most 4K or 4K plus displays, lack of color depth. 

The ASUS PB287Q may only be a 4K monitor but it handles 60x more colors.

All you hear people harp on is Dynamic Range... Dynamic Range... And then you throw away a BILLION colors?

I am sure it is a "nice" display, and it is a "big" foot print.  But I like colors... Lots of colors.

And even if you do get one of the few 1 Billion+ display monitors that are out there, so still need a card that can handle that as well. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: So what makes a camera a "pro" camera?
« on: October 14, 2014, 02:03:58 PM »
Build, Performance, Features.

A solid photographer can take great photos with crap equipment and a n00b can screw up even the best of top end gear.

A pro camera is often more metal allow than plastic and has better weather sealing. 

Photography Technique / Re: Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:56:51 AM »
My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner. You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100 or 200.

Generally, "pulling" means just digitally(!) moving the data to the left side of the histogram, the "analog" sensor setting is exactly the same as in the base iso it's "pulled" from. It's all bout Canon's very high read noise that drowns dynamic range on lower iso (hence the flat nearly flag dr curve at the start != Nikon exmor). But "160 better than 100" is an urban legend, at least with the camera models I have (60d 18mp sensor & 6d).

Read this where I've asked the Magic Lantern people about this, and their answers are in-depth: "Do have iso160-multiples have more dr & less noise?" http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9867.0

Part of my argument is made in there.  See the following graph:

The graph shows at least for the 5D MK III and the 7D:
ISO 160 < 1SO 100 < ISO 125
ISO 320 < 1SO 200 < ISO 250
ISO 640 < 1SO 400 < ISO 500

I read the thread, and there seems to be mixed confusion. 

It is fairly easy to test.  Do same shooting for a longer exposure with lens cap on, and increase ISO and compare image noise seen:

I think this may have been the link I have originally found:


Lenses / Re: Do date codes matter?
« on: October 14, 2014, 08:41:43 AM »
Only thing date code matters for is how old the lens is.  most of the time it is inconsequential, but can give you some idea,  especially for lenses that have been around for a while, just how long your lens may have been out there. 

For most lenses, new, it does not matter much, though if you buy a lens that has been sitting on a shelf for 2 years, you use it a few times and sell it, a buyer may wonder why the lens you say is 6 months old and shot twice has a 3 year old date code.  , bets to keep your receipts handy.

For other lenses, it can be important.  Take the long in the tooth 100 - 400.  This lens has been around for 16 years and while an L lens, the push - pull mechanism seems to be a dust magnet.  I would give a 10 year old version of this lens a much thorough looking over for dust and internal issues than say a 1 year old version. 

I ended up purchasing at MicroCenter

If there is a Microcenter near you, highly recommend them, as well if you put a little time in and figure out what you want for hardware, you can save a ton if you time and wait. 

If you do build (which is really not that tough) DON'T SKIMP on the power supply.  Easily one of the most important components... Smooth, clean, constant power is the lifeblood of the system.  I never go below 600W and generally go more 800W or more. 

You will pay more building versus buying, but the machine you build, if you build it right will run longer and stronger and much faster because you hand picked the best components.

Order of Importance:

1)  MB
2)  Memory
3)  Power Supply
4)  CPU
5)  SSD
6)  Case
7)  Other HDs

Really Memory and Power Supply are probably 1 and 2, but MB is the base and having right number of slots, connections, etc can be important.  I have seen a lot of great mother boards that only have a few SATA connections (like 3 or 4) where 6 can be prime.  Always nice to be able to add another drive or bay, especially if you want to have more than one Blu-Ray.

6 may seem excessive, but for me.

1)  SSD
2)  Blu-Ray
3)  Main Program HD (3 TB)
4)  Archives HD (3 TB)  (Music, TV shows, Streamed Content, Back-ups, Install files, etc)
5)  Hot-Swap Bay
6)  External HD array (6 TB ) - Photos

#5 is one of my faves - allows me to just throw in a 3TB or larger drive and treat like a flash drive for either back up of off site storage of content. 

I probably could combine 3 and 4, but I have a ton of FLAC music, like 300GB of AC/DC concerts and video alone.  I am also old school and like to have 20% or more free space on my drives

Photography Technique / Re: Noise in 5D III - Concern or my fault?
« on: October 14, 2014, 06:37:31 AM »
Forget where I read it, but I try and use ISO 100, 160, 320, 640

You can use the standard ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, but the 160 is really ISO 200 that is 1/3rd under exposed and seems to come out less noise.  You can see some tests out there where 160 appears to be less noisy than 100 even. 

My understanding is for some of the "expansion" of the ISO, the lower is pushed and the upper is pulled, and the pulled ones, because under exposed, are cleaner.  You are losing some DR, but you gt less noise, so if that is your concern, 160 will produce less noise than 100  or 200.

Harv, I understand some of your rants, but seriously?  VISTA?  That was one of the biggest OS POS since Windows ME.  Granted, at least you are running the 64-bit version which at least allows you to access more than 4GB of RAM, but if you are 64-Home Basic and not Premium, you are limited to 8GB which pretty much sucks.

Your issue will not only be Canon, but in the future Hard Drives, what ever replaces Blu-Ray, size of HD, faster memory, video cards, etc.  While you often can some times just swap out a motherboard and CPU and use your same install, you can run into drive problems at the hardware level as well.  Also be aware that Microsoft really no longer supports Vista.  You can get some of their "extended" support, but that is scheduled for termination in early 2017

Like others, I have been building my own for the last 20 years now almost. 

I generally use ASUS or ABIT motherboards and AMD processors for the price point.  Run at least 16 GB of memory a 500GB SSD for main drive and the what ever for data drives. 

Another point for building your own is some of the newer video cards may have support issue, so while most cards may currently support Vista from the last couple of years, that will become harder to find.  This will be especially true with 4K cards in the future.

As for me I have a hodge podge... My oldest system is Win 98.  It is pretty much grave yarded, but I have some proprietary software from a company that is long out of business.  It might get turned on 3 times a year if that.  An old laptop I should probably clean and sell, which is Vista Home 64, and my main PC at home and laptop are Win 7 machines.

Machines at work are Win 8.1, and not much of a difference, a few little nuances of how programs are organized, but with win 8.1 you can pretty much still have your old "desktop" which is what freaked most people out. 

I have CS 4 for suite LightRoom 4.51 and PS CS6 for software I own.  I did do the CC Photog program, and while loathe to pay $10 a month for perpetuity, It is cheaper than the upgrades I was doing on PS and LR every year to two years. 

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How to differentiate crop vs. FF
« on: October 13, 2014, 10:16:23 AM »
In general I have found FF to have better DR, High ISO, and DOF.  I generally like the "quality" of the images.  I noticed a big difference between the look of my 5D MK II over my T2i.  Very different breeds of camera, but I will probably always shoot fashion and beauty with a FF over a crop

For sports. I like the extra reach of the crop.  Very big asset to throw on a solid 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and get 120-320 without a TC and not pay the focus penalty. 

If I do pick up the 7D MK II I would consider a 2nd 70-200 F/2.8 IS II so I could have one on the 5D MK III and another on the 7D MK II and cover 70 - 320 fairly effectively, or maybe hunt for a 120-300 Sigma and have the 70-200 of the 5D MK III and the 120-300 on the 7D MK III which would then be 192-480, or effectively have 70-500 (just a few short) at f/2.8

If what I hear about performance and image quality stands up, this would be a solid combo for sports until I upgrade the 5D MK III to a 1Dx

Come to think of it, in the Sports arena a 1Dx / 7D MK II with the above lenses would be extremely hard to beat. 

EOS Bodies / Re: Multilayer Sensors are Coming From Canon [CR2]
« on: October 08, 2014, 05:58:11 PM »
The big question... When does Canon take on the Camera Phone market.  Clearly if the 1Dxs can make phone calls, play games, and text.., then they will have a real winner on their hands

Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 08, 2014, 11:08:10 AM »

I enjoyed the video, but how can Scott give an honest opinion when he is sponsored by Canon???

One, it is an opinion.

Two, he states that he was loaned the cameras to give feedback to Canon.

Three, everyone who has a slightest clue of who he is, knows he is sponsored by Canon and obviously a little biased. 

Something tells me Kelby's evaluation is a little more "Honest" than say Tony Northrup's where he only got 60% in focus with the 5D MKIII

Canon General / Re: Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"
« on: October 04, 2014, 06:51:09 AM »
How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses? 

Ah, but the article is about CAMERA sales, not lens sales.

... what is hidden in the numbers is for every upgrade like I plan to do, there are more people who will then enter with used gear and wind up getting more lenses, flashes, etc.

Of which many will be bought secondhand from "upgraders" - as you also stated.

There appears (at least to me) to be a solid core of DSLR shooters who will likely remain DSLR shooters.

True. However, there are also a lot of people who bought middle-range DSLR's and have now found that their iPhone is just so much more convenient ... and takes alright'ish enough pictures semi-equivalent to the kit lens. So they sell the practically brand-new 60D to finance the next-generation iPhone. Canon makes zippola, because the DSLR is not "upgraded" with a new DSLR.

Hell, especially for long teles, I still see FD versions sell well probably because of Ed Mika adapters alone. 

For which Canon doesn't get a dime, penny or cent.

But in the next 12 month we should have the 7D MK II, the 5D MK IV, the 1DX II and perhaps a high MP if that is not one of the two later.

You wish.  ;D

Do you think Canon's 23% might rise greatly with 3 - 4 top end Pro/Prosumer bodies in 12 months?

Canon already has too many DSLR models on the market, IMO. This causes buyer confusion.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but for companies like Canon, Nikon and others Lenses are just as important as bodies.  As a whole I would agree the P&S market will probably evaporate because of capabilities of phones 

I am not disagreeing that their are too many cameras out there as well.  I think Canon would be better served with a little more consolidation in its entry level lines

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 02, 2014, 05:44:33 PM »
It wasn't the camera's fault OR my fault - it was the ballhead on the tripod.

Would anyone else like to showcase their ignorance?

Correction: It's always the photographer's fault. Even in instances of gear failure, it's a photographer's fault for:

1) Not having backup gear.
2) Not having the correct gear for the job.
3) Not being able to work around gear failure to capture the shot through alternate means.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 28