July 25, 2014, 09:17:52 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 - torger

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15
16
Don't forget that the DR advantage is there at base ISO, at higher ISOs there's not much of a difference. For wildlife I think the Canon *system* is a winner thanks to the excellent super-telephoto lenses and great teleconverters.

The D800 can compete with some medium format systems thanks to the resolution and excellent base ISO DR, this is very clear at MF forums where the D800 is discussed a lot, some have dropped out of MF and uses a D800E instead. The 5Dmk3 is not discussed at all - it is not an alternative to MF. For typical DSLR type of photography though the 5Dmk3 sensor is good enough so it is other things that people care about, like how it feels in the hand, ruggedness, autofocus performance, speed etc.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II Info? [CR2]
« on: May 15, 2012, 06:50:36 AM »
I have sold my 7D, but I will probably get a similar camera in the future. I'd love a "baby 1DX", high build quality, large enough body to match full-frame lenses (as the 7D) and an APS-C sensor with good ISO performance.

I'd like a ~12 megapixel sensor, suitable for hand-held use, but since Canon has mRaw and sRaw a little higher count would not hurt. Make it a well-built full-featured action camera for tele work and it will be truly great.

The (not-so-unlikely) scenario that instead 60D and 7D is merged into a 70D with lesser build quality and there really won't be any "pro" APS-C body in the future would be disappointing I think. I don't like the current trend among many manufacturers of packing great electronics into mediocre bodies.

18
How will your photos be displayed?

From my experience what gains the most from high resolution is not necessarily the largest prints, but those that are watched most critically.

Say a spread in a large high quality photo book, or a large fine art print hanging on the wall. It also makes a huge difference if the photo is a portrait, or if it is a scenic view of a detailed landscape. If it is a portrait people generally wants to see it from a distance, but if it is a detailed landscape people can step close to look at a subsection of the picture just to look at all amazing details.

For a high quality photo book it is best to keep at around 300 ppi. For a large fine art print 200 ppi is about the lowest you want to go if it should look reasonably sharp up close.

For very large prints you obviously have to compromise, and if you have to compromise 22 or 36 megapixels won't make that much of a difference, heck you might say like Ken Rockwell that 6 megapixels is enough for anything ;-)

19
The advantage of digital medium format has traditionally been higher dynamic range and higher resolution, the disadvantage - an astronomic cost, still many professionals pay what it costs to gain that little extra quality. Now the D800 provides medium-format-like DR (perhaps even better DR) and resolution at an attractive price. A 35mm camera that crosses over into medium format territory, I think it is truly fantastic. The D800 sets a new standard of what can be achieved with a 35mm digital system. Great for fine art, landscape and studio photographers. Wouldn't it be great if Canon had a similar offer?

In medium format circles the D800 is now discussed as a serious alternative/complement to expensive MF cameras. Canon 5D mark III isn't even discussed at all. It should be said that the MF community is quite small though, so for total market sales it is not too important. But if Nikon gets known as the 35mm digital that can do it all, and Canon is mainly for journalism, sports and wildlife, many more beginning photographers that don't know for sure what they will do will rather invest in Nikon.

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors
« on: April 24, 2012, 04:23:53 AM »
Canon sensor is surely "good enough". It's easy to forget that the 5Dmk3 sensor is not bad, it is the Sony Exmor sensor in the D800 that is exceptionally good, in a class of its own. No sensor except Sony Exmor show these properties, and it is not too many cameras that have it.

However, once you've seen that it is possible to have cleaner dark colors than we were used to, it is hard not to desire it.

It is not about the Canon sensor being so bad it ruins pictures. It doesn't. The older version I lenses did not ruin pictures either, but still sharper version II are introduced to set a new quality standard. Sony has now raised the bar concerning sensor image quality, and Canon is currently lagging behind and shows no sign of having the technology to respond. Sure thing I like to whine a bit about that :-).

21
I use one of the more stable Gitzo carbon tripod. If you want sharp long exposures or 100% sharp images in windy conditions you need to spend. In calm conditions and normal length exposures (shoot in live view to avoid mirror slap) a simpler tripod will do fine.

I put my tripod in the water and use it in rough conditions, the gear is made to be used. It is more a mental thing, if one has so expensive gear that it would be a financial disaster if something breaks (and there's no insurance) one will be too careful and miss shots. Then it is better to use cheaper gear or get a good insurance so one dares to take some risk. The gear itself handles rough conditions.

I use a 3-way geared head. Slow to work with (unusable to track things) but much easier to precisely compose a landscape shot. Since I shoot landscape I use that 90% of the time. I have a ball head too which I use if I need to track something, but I don't like it for landscape photography. If I would have only one head for all-around use that would be a ball head though.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 10, 2012, 06:17:56 AM »
Waiting for raw support in my raw processor before I can do investigations myself.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D3 same max dynamic range as the 5D2???
« on: March 10, 2012, 03:30:47 AM »
Numbers are hard to interpret, there are so many factors that don't show in a number. No measurement so far I've seen take noise quality (pattern etc) into account, which has a huge impact on subjective DR.

Even if 5Dmk2 and 3 measure the same, if pattern noise is less than usable DR will be better.

High ISO measurements often miss out on quantum efficiency and can be misleading due to that.

A test that I would like to see is mk2 and mk3 shooting the exact same test scene perfectly ETTR, and then push a shadow area (preferably containing a color checker) 3 stops and show the crops side by side, resolution is almost the same so no sacling is required. I suspect/hope that the mk3 will fair much better in such a test than these measurements indicate.

24
Some older medium format digital backs have low ISO ratings. But this is because less good quantum efficiency (not all photons are registered), which also makes them really bad in low light.

To get the same effect with a modern sensor you can put on a ND filter.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's answer to the D800E
« on: March 06, 2012, 03:15:15 AM »
I think in general that it is a good thing to outresolve the lenses, one would want to get the max out of the expensive glass right? One can always downscale.

However, if one does expect really good corner performance with ~40 megapixel sensor I think there will be a bit of disappointment.

Medium format is a disaster price/performance too of course. I've looked into tech cameras, and the camera and lenses are not too expensive if you choose those with better price/performance, similar to pro DSLR equipment, but the digital backs... arrghh... as an amateur what you need to do is to get a second hand back  several years old. A 22 megapixel 48x36mm back can be had for $4000 if you keep your eye on ebay, in a couple of years you can probably upgrade to 40 megapixel back for a similar price. The sensors are quite good despite old actually thanks to the large pixels, but user interface is a joke. So one really have to looooove those sharp corners to go there :).

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's answer to the D800E
« on: March 05, 2012, 11:26:07 AM »
I would prefer more MP for my landscape work.

But lately I'm kind of starting to change my mind about this. I'm afraid that corner sharpness for a ~40 megapixel DSLR will suffer a bit too much for landscape work. When I shift my 7D to the "full-frame" corner of a TS-E 24mm II I can see how that lens will look in the corner for a 45 megapixel full-frame camera (without shift). It is not that sharp, and then the TS-E 24mm II is the best 24mm lens out there, concerning corner performance. So is it worthwhile making that high megapixel DSLRs? Well, center sharpness will be good, so in much photography I guess it would work out.

But for landscape work where corner sharpness is important, it may be that you really have to go to medium format to get 40+ megapixels resolved with good quality.

It shall be interesting to see how the D800 will perform in landscape photography with the Nikon lens lineup.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D III high ISO samples
« on: March 02, 2012, 03:43:38 PM »
Canon has done some real work on the blacks, I can move the black slider in LR4 all the way to the right without seeing any banding.

Yes that was about the first thing I tested too. Banding may be gone! I'm kind of shocked, in a positive way. I've been quite pessimistic about canon noise performance, but perhaps this sensor really can put up a match against Sony Exmor! We'll see when RAW samples become available. But it looks promising.

28
I have the 5D mark II, and I don't think the mark III will provide anything significant for my needs. It's probably a nice all-around camera, but no features I really need as a landscape photographer.

Had it been higher resolution or significantly higher DR at base ISO (yet to see!) I would have been interested.

I'll wait and see if Canon will do any high resolution camera. The lack of D800E response have actually made me interested in digital medium format. With second hand digital back it is less expensive than one may think, still a lot more expensive than 35mm DSLRs though.

But say if Canon won't make a high resolution camera in the coming three year period, I may just be better off halting my Canon system investment, sell off some of it I already have and get a medium format tech camera for my landscape work. "Switching" to Nikon does not seem as a good idea, since I'm a tilt-shift lens user. Nikon's lenses are not too impressive. Canon has the TS-E 24mm II. I'd like to see an upgrade of the 45 and 90 mm real soon though.

29
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 28, 2012, 02:09:57 AM »
How do all the high end medium format digital backs get such good DR? do they read at a higher true bit rate though sampling before the AD converter?

The good DR of medium format is a bit of a myth. They do have 16 bit ADC, but that's meaningless since the noise levels are too high, 14 bit would yield the same result. I've also heard the exposure metering is different from DSLRs, underexposing more so you get more highlight headroom so you can push more in Lightroom which some mistakingly think means that there is more dynamic range.

And then there is what you compare with. If you compare with Canon 5D mark II, yes, there is better dynamic range, because the MF sensors are usually very nice random noise, not patterned noise like on the 5D. But compare with a Sony Exmor sensor and the MF sensor has a little bit less DR. All MF vs DSLR tests I've seen has been with Canon cameras, and they always lose. But they would lose against a Nikon or a Sony with a Sony Exmor sensor too.

Then there is the larger sensor area, there is some DR gain from that since you can gather more photons (less shot noise), but that gain is not very large.

Throughout the years many DSLRs have been released with less than perfect DR, while MF sensors has at least since 2003 had good DR. But that's only on base ISO of course, those CCDs are not good at high ISO. DSLRs have always aimed for more all-around performance including high ISO. Anyway for several years if you have got MF you know that base ISO performance will be great, which has helped established the belief that MF is generally superior, although some DSLRs today mave even have greater DR.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: DR and RAW bit depth on Canon's forthcoming...
« on: February 26, 2012, 03:50:08 PM »
the comparisons are between different sensor generations, with 2+ years difference in release. A more relevant comparison would be between the 5d MkII and D700 or the 7D and D300s. Even the 1D MkIV is now over two years old.

The new G1X sensor which is fairly large, does not look very promising in that regard, but perhaps they've made it deliberatly worse than the 7D sensor to not compete within their own lines.

There's also the thing that Canon simply don't have the Sony Exmor technology. The big difference is that the ADC is on chip. Canon does not have that. Sony Exmor is a minor revolution (for low ISO). What you can expect from Canon is a gradual evolution. You'll certainly see "good enough" performance, but I'll (almost) eat my shorts if it will be world-leading.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 15