December 17, 2014, 09:45:28 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 - Lee Jay

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 89
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:36:29 PM »
I'm wondering if the next firmware update will sort out some of these niggles

Hopefully

You guys are assuming the problems with some copies have nothing to do with hardware.  Since a replacement seems to fix it, that's unlikely.

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mkIV
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:55:52 AM »
On the other side, Sony is really preparing for an "big hit" in spring with an successor of the Alpha 7 36MP series. My granddaughter in law is working for this Company and heared an verfied rumor. Alpha 7 high MP for sports.....  It couls be possible that Canon rises the MP to 24 and makes ist faster (AF, fps) and better low light performance.... (But for me, there will just be an small percentage that this will happen as Canon knows how to milk us....)

the "milking us" part will soon be over. More precisely: the moment Sony delivers a "really right" mirrorless A9, flanked by a "holy trinity" of f/2.8 FE zooms. No more need for a marginally iterated 5D Mk. IV then. 8)

+1 - my body is ready to switch !

-1

The 5DIV needs to be a full-frame version of the 7DII - including dual pixel technology.  And it absolutely must have an OVF or it's DOA for probably 90% of its user base.

33
As I pointed out above, when there is stuff moving in the scene I'm generally shooting at higher ISO.  In fact, it's very uncommon for me to shoot a moving scene at base ISO.

You should get outdoors more ... or move to a better spot on the earth :-)

There's some truth to that.  Since I'm allergic to grasses, trees and flowers I try to stay out of "nature" as much as practical.

34
btw: no, I have not seen the Erez image in full resolution either, but I don't think there es a lot of detail loss/image degradation from lifting shadws visible.
If I really needed a heavy deep-shadow push, I'd just shoot a quick three-shot HDR in a burst.  I've done it handheld no problem.  I can easily end up with an image with a DR of 16-18 stops that way, done in a fraction of a second.

In many cases where there is nothing moving in the shot, yes.
Also, when the sun [or in night scenes a really bright light] is included in the frame, I find it very hard to get a really good final image putting together 3 (or 5) bracketed shots, no matter which tool/method I use. Not saying it cannot be done, but it definitely takes quite some effort and very good PP skills.

As I pointed out above, when there is stuff moving in the scene I'm generally shooting at higher ISO.  In fact, it's very uncommon for me to shoot a moving scene at base ISO.  You need just the right amount of light for that - just enough so that base ISO is high enough to freeze the motion that's there at the chosen f-stop.  In essence, I've never once run across that situation.  There's always either enough light or slow enough motion for an HDR shot in burst, or so little that I'm upping the ISO just to get enough shutter speed in a single shot.  That's the point of the ISO 1600 shot I posted above.  No HDR would work there, and neither would a Sony sensor (well, it would work, it just wouldn't work better than a Canon sensor).

35
btw: no, I have not seen the Erez image in full resolution either, but I don't think there es a lot of detail loss/image degradation from lifting shadws visible.

There's no detail in that image at all.

If I really needed a heavy deep-shadow push, I'd just shoot a quick three-shot HDR in a burst.  I've done it handheld no problem.  I can easily end up with an image with a DR of 16-18 stops that way, done in a fraction of a second.

The difference between Canon and Sony sensors in the shadows at base ISO is around 2 stops.  It's not easy to find a scene where 11 stops isn't enough by 13 stops is.  That's a pretty narrow slot.  I generally find most scenes fit into 9 stops.  Some crazy stuff can be 16+ and I've had one at 30+ stops.

36
Opposite example to your image ist the one LeeJay posted, the shopping mall or hotel lobby ... uniformly bright place, hardly any contiguos dark areas in the image, and those visible do not contain image-relevant information/detail, so it is hard to see noise or degradation in details from NR.

You say a lot of weird stuff.  Here's the before and after to demonstrate just how wrong the above statement is.


37
Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.

And that makes three pieces of hard evidence.

OK. You are right. You can pull shadows up 3+ or any number of stops on images out of any camera, including Canon cameras.

Only thing is, I do not care about any of the results shown in the samples in this thread at all. All of these images are falling apart - especially when they would be viewed large. And there is no more contrast or life left in them.

Wich puts them in stark contrast to Erez' image linked in the startpost.

What are you talking about?  Erez' image is the one lacking contrast!  I took his final JPEG and set it at contrast +80 to get it to look decent!

38
Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.

And that makes three pieces of hard evidence.

Again: Sony FF Exmor can stretch further. The shadow detail can be deeper...pitch black before processing...and still be recovered. But if you ETTR with Canon and can just start to see the detail to be recovered in the unprocessed version, you will typically be OK. There's a lot of room there, just not the same amount that's on Exmor FF.

I'll add one more, similar to the forest one.  I don't have a lot of these, but this is a +3 stop shadow push from a 5D shot at ISO 200.

And, I too am not saying that the Exmor's aren't better at this, just that it's a relatively unimportant capability.

39
If you think the second image is an improvement then we are talking about different things.
+1 That second image is quite horrid.

Try extremely horrid.

40
Are you referring to the tree trunk I see above, which as so much NR it looks painted.

Exaggeration. Never the less, he could have gotten away with less NR as I did in mine: http://s7.postimg.org/oli4obisr/7d_dr_2.jpg

+2.5ev is not a problem for Canon sensors.

you must be joking ...  +2.5 EV is a HUGE problem for Canon sensors, and most definitely for the 7D and all other APS-C sensors.

Attached is a +3EV push (midtones) to +4EV push (shadows) from a Rebel T2i.


41
You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy.  Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image.  In other words, their range is image-adaptive.  +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.

Do you have a link to a paper or demonstration of that, it would be interesting.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html

Thanks, that made my day. Here is the direct link to the actual paper.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/sparis/publi/2011/siggraph/Paris_11_Local_Laplacian_Filters.pdf

https://forums.adobe.com/message/4139937#4139937

"For the record, all six central Basic controls in PV 2012 (Exposure thru Blacks) are image adaptive.  But then again, Recovery, Fill Light, and Clarity in earlier versions of Lr (and in PV 2003/2010 in Lr 4 Beta) were also image adaptive.  They auto-adjusted their behavior internally based on image content.  In PV 2012 we've simply extended that idea to the rest of the Basic controls.  Don't let that scare you, and don't get hung up on the terminology. Remember: the goal is better images.  I think in PV 2012 we've provided a better and faster way to do that."

42
You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy.  Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image.  In other words, their range is image-adaptive.  +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.

Do you have a link to a paper or demonstration of that, it would be interesting.

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/02/magic-or-local-laplacian-filters.html

43
He is praising Sony for, and we are debating, an image that could have been produced with a single frame from any modern camera including the just discontinued original 7D.

No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.

Personally, I never apply more than max! +/- 50 on highlights and shadows sliders or more than max +1.2 stops shadow pull in local adjustments on my 7d captures, since the image falls apart otherwise - every time.

And I've used the T2i (same sensor) since it came out, and have produced images like that from it.

You should know that limiting yourself to some arbitrary figures on ACR or LR's PV 2012 highlight and shadow sliders is a wrong strategy.  Those sliders are scaled to the image contrast, and thus change in range with each image.  In other words, their range is image-adaptive.  +50 might be a 1 stop push on one image and a 3 stop push on another image.

44
The thing is, you still have the pre-production option if you prefer, but you also have more flexibility for post-processing. Why some people are against that is beyond me. Many are excited about a marginal improvement in high ISO noise in the 7DII vs the original 7D after 5 years of development, but 400% more DR (~2 stops) is not important?

That's right.

I generally don't need more than 8-9 stops of DR.  So, whether I have 12 or 14 matters very little.

What does matter is how high I can crank up the ISO before I can't get 8-9 stops anymore.

So, yes, I'd trade 2 whole stops of base ISO DR for half a stop of improved performance at high ISO.  By the way, from what I'm seeing, the 7D2 is more than a whole stop better at high ISO than the 7D.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Focus problems with the Canon 7DII?
« on: December 07, 2014, 11:29:29 PM »


After editing are they still not very sharp? Are we taking about jpgs or raws?

Raws at 100% in Lightroom or Photoshop. I'd say they they just aren't as tack sharp as a full frame image from my 5D3. It's not that they aren't in focus. Sharpness might not be the best word. More like a 5D3 file that's been cropped and then rez'd back up to a higher resolution. 7D2 files are a 60% magnification of 5D3 files so its no surprise that it shows. I'm sure lots of folks won't agree, but I'd say the 7D2 vs 5D3 gives you an additional 20% increase in resolution (7D2 vs croped 5D3) but magnifies your files by 60%. So the extra 40% shows up as a lack of sharpness if that makes sense. There is a price to be paid which can be seen at 100%. Sorry about all of the %'s. ;)

Got you that makes sense. Thanks for the reply.

Sure, it's a simplification but I think it gets to the core of the issue. Added an edit so I thought i'd bump it

edit...this is just for 100% pixel peepers. Normal size prints and electronic files for distribution look fine. But, if you won't be happy with anything less than the highest possible IQ. Well...do you need me to say it...1DX, Big Whites and a bird blind to hide in...

Many people miss the bird blind part and would rather use a 1.6x crutch for their pictures.

How's a bird blind going to help me when I'm shooting airplanes?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 89