Messages

31

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

« on: March 23, 2012, 08:53:35 PM »

I congratulate Nikon on producing a stellar camera in the D800. Now can someone please post sample images taken with both a D800 and a 5DIII, where the D800 made them a better photographer? I have a feeling that I'll be waiting for a long time.

Easy to spot Canon images they are the ones with banding in the shadows & with burnt out highlights  & very poor  reds , I love the Canon red colour its a great red just like to see more shades of red sometimes.

Reds are poor with defaults from ACR in some Canon models, but I found I can tweak settings and get detail without too much trouble.  For more troublesome color images, I use DPP, which usually nails the color.

Banding... is much improved recently.  I don't see any in any of the 5D3 samples until 25600.   

32

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Mother of God - D800 scores 95 DxOMark

« on: March 23, 2012, 08:35:19 PM »

Making it the Highest Rated Sensor they've tested. Impressive! Don't Let us down Canon.

Nikon D800 

Overall Score - 95 

Color Depth - 25.3 bits 

Dynamic Range - 14.4 

Low Light ISO - 2853

This is killing me, I think Canon's going to lose this round big. I'm not jumping ship though, I'll still get the 5D3 or 1D X... because I just can't stand how the Nikon Cameras feel in my hand, and I've got all my Canon Gear.

Low Light ISO 2853... dunno how they compute that but when I look at the dpreview raw samples vs the 5D2 and their own D7000, I don't see better (is that scale linear?).  Same on Imaging Resource.   I'm not knocking the D800 by any means, it sounds like a fantastic camera, it has amazing resolution and great features, but the noise... sorry, can't buy the numbers. 

Kinda moot for me regardless, I like my Canon lenses and will not replace them. 

I also don't like the feel of the Nikon bodies, Canon fits me better.  When I started looking into digital years ago, I tried Nikon first, just couldn't do it. 

For the most part, Nikon users will buy the D800 and Canon users will buy the 5D3, and both sides will produce great images.

33

Lenses / Re: B+W Filters compared to Promaster Filters?

« on: March 12, 2012, 09:39:07 AM »

Once, long ago, I tried to be cheap and bought a promaster polarizer.  And I was completely unable to focus, it was totally unusable.  Bought a Hoya instead.  So my only comparison is... B+W works and promaster might not.   

I'm guessing that was a linear polarizer rather than a circular one. Linear polarizers will kill AF on dslr's, no matter what brand.

Missed this before.  It was not an AF camera.  It WAS a linear polarizer, but this was for my old Minolta SRT-101, so it wasn't a bad matchup, it was just a bad filter.   On the same lens and camera, the Hoya linear filter I bought instead worked great.

34

EOS Bodies / Re: Lets get the 70D/7D Mark II rumors flowing!

« on: March 02, 2012, 11:00:11 PM »

Since we are only talking about image level the photon noise has nothing to do with pixel size. This is also why sonys 16MP and 24MP sensors have the same performance.
I think one possibillity to actually crank some more noise improvement of the Bayer sensor is to significantly increase the number of pixels. I expect that a 200MP, if it was possible to manucature, would outperform 1DX in low noise at high ISO in final image. This is because NR algorithms are more efficient than pure averaging. The same sensor noise but a huge improvement in the possibility to perform NR.

Using my own eyes and looking at NEX-7 RAW files, the Sony 24 mpix sensor looks noisier than my 50D at 1600.  I haven't a clue how DXO measures anything, but I seem to disagree with their measurements.   At 100, that sensor is beautiful, but it gets too noisy rather quickly IMHO. 

So I hope Canon sticks with 18 mpix, and improves DR and noise as they have done with the 1D X and 5D3.

Noone else that has made serious test on NEX-7 seems to have disagreed with DXOMARK. Therefor its obvious you are doing something wrong. I would guess you are comparing them at different sizes making it a pointless comparison.

You would be guessing wrong then.

About three years ago, when I was looking at the 50D, I did a lot of research on it.  Lots of reputable sites and reviewers gave it poor/mediocre marks.  I thought, I trust Canon more than these reviews.  And I looked closely at the reviews.  And I found lots of flaws in these tests.  Misplaced focus, sub-optimal processing, using beta software, etc. 

And aside from the surprise of the 7D coming out less than a year later, it was a good choice.  I only say that because the 7D is better, but oh well, I pulled the trigger, thinking Canon would only ever do incremental upgrades.   Now I'm waiting to see what the 7D2 brings before I upgrade.  I should note that IQ isn't the reason I'll upgrade.  I have beautiful large prints on the wall.  I just want better AF at this point.   More DR and better ISO is always welcome. I don't believe the camera matters anywhere near as much as the light and composition and vision of the person controlling it.

And, I trust my eyes more than some algorithm.  Anyone is free to disagree.  When I see the NR applied by Sony on the NEX-7 images, I see a tremendous loss of detail.  When I see RAW NEX-7 images with no NR, I see more noise than my 50D. 

35

EOS Bodies / Re: Lets get the 70D/7D Mark II rumors flowing!

« on: March 02, 2012, 06:34:31 PM »

(and this is indicated by the current Sony 24mp APS-C sensor, which also has very low read noise...but is noisy as hell.)

This is incorrect information. The Sony 24MP APC-C sensor has the same noise performance as their 16MP sensor. Both outperform 7D at high iso noise.
According to DXOMARK the difference between NEX-5n and NEX-7 is less than 0.1 stop. This has also been confirmed by several others by subjective IQ tests.

I wasn't actually referring to read noise, which is superb in Sony's sensors. I was referring to photon noise, which tends to make up the bulk of noise anyway. At such a high density, as a matter of physics, low-ISO photon shot noise is going to be higher (well, it will be higher at all ISO levels, but Sony wins out on the high end due to their extremely low read noise levels.) Sony APS-C sensors are a little larger than Canon APS-C, so its not going to be as noisy as a 24mp Canon APS-C would be, but it doesn't really matter who manufactures them...if we keep pushing APS-C sensor resolution, things are going to get noisier.

Since we are only talking about image level the photon noise has nothing to do with pixel size. This is also why sonys 16MP and 24MP sensors have the same performance.
I think one possibillity to actually crank some more noise improvement of the Bayer sensor is to significantly increase the number of pixels. I expect that a 200MP, if it was possible to manucature, would outperform 1DX in low noise at high ISO in final image. This is because NR algorithms are more efficient than pure averaging. The same sensor noise but a huge improvement in the possibility to perform NR.

Using my own eyes and looking at NEX-7 RAW files, the Sony 24 mpix sensor looks noisier than my 50D at 1600.  I haven't a clue how DXO measures anything, but I seem to disagree with their measurements.   At 100, that sensor is beautiful, but it gets too noisy rather quickly IMHO. 

So I hope Canon sticks with 18 mpix, and improves DR and noise as they have done with the 1D X and 5D3.

36

Lenses / Re: 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 17-40mm f/4L for a crop camera

« on: February 21, 2012, 11:55:43 AM »

Huge real world comparison here:

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

I've owned both lenses at the same time. The 17-40 produces better images. The 15-85 is more versatile. The build quality of the 17-40 is much better, and the barrel does not extend. The 15-85 is known for lens creep, which is unacceptable for a $750 lens. That said, the 15-85 build quality is a notch up on lenses like the 10-22 and 17-55, which are IMHO, flimsy. The 15-85 also has wicked vignetting and distortion at the wide end.

As a walkaround, the 15-85 is the superior lens. For landscape on a tripod in rugged conditions with the feel and andling of "luxury", the 17-40 is your lens. The 17-40 really needs another 10mm IMHO to be a great walkaround lens. I still own mine with my 7D, but I purchased a 24-105 IS because of the short range of the 17-40.

If most of your landscapes fall between 17 and 40mm, it's the lens to have on a crop, IMHO. Flare-handling is excellent as are colors and contrast.

For indoor shooting, just get primes. 2.8 is often not fast enough. I see the 2.8 crop zooms as jack of all trades, master of none. They don't have the reach of the 15-85's or the 24-105's, nor do they have the essential speed of the primes.

I found the opposite.  I never had a problem with my 17-40, but my 15-85 is definitely superior.  Sample variation, I'd say.   I would prefer a build like the 17-40, but I needed the extra range.

I agree with primes for indoor shooting, and that is exactly what I'm doing.  I have the 50mm f/1.4 and plan to get the 28 f/1.8. 

37

Lenses / Re: 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 17-40mm f/4L for a crop camera

« on: February 19, 2012, 10:45:04 AM »

I replaced my 17-40 with the 15-85 for the range.  I wanted something a little wider, and a little longer.  The tradeoff is losing a stop of speed.  Outdoors this isn't a problem.

I have no zoom creep.

The 15-85 is sharp from corner to corner wide open at every setting (there is a tiny bit of loss of sharpness in the very extreme corner which doesn't affect most real-world images).  Bokeh is quite decent, as is color and contrast.

I wish it was weather sealed, and faster, but the image quality can't be beat.

38

Software & Accessories / Re: RAW processing workflow query

« on: February 09, 2012, 03:50:15 PM »

I prefer to keep all related image files in the same folder, using the same name (mostly) with different extensions: 

A raw file named IMG_0001.cr2 which remains untouched of course.
A Tiff (the PS edit, with layers) named  Subject_IMG_0001.tif  (replace with PSD, I just happen to use tif)
A couple of JPGs named Subject_IMG_0001-sm.jpg  (for the web sized version) and Subject_IMG_0001-lg.jpg for the print version. 

39

EOS Bodies / Re: Anyone else want a cropped sensor?

« on: February 09, 2012, 08:18:09 AM »

I have a 50D and I have great prints on the wall from it, so I'm not worried about sensors or sizes.  I will benefit from better ISO and DR of course, but the most important upgrade for me will be AF.  I'm waiting to see what the 7D2 brings.  I'd have gotten the 7D but my wife would have killed me... waiting keeps me out of the doghouse. 

40

Lenses / Re: B+W Filters compared to Promaster Filters?

« on: February 07, 2012, 12:17:57 PM »

This is a worthwhile read.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/good-times-with-bad-filters

41

Lenses / Re: B+W Filters compared to Promaster Filters?

« on: February 07, 2012, 12:15:50 PM »

For what it is worth... I did not try a new one, nor a high end one.  More than one person has said that cheap filters are often bad no matter what brand name.   The HGX line may well be good, and it may be worth your time to research them more.  I've lately only used high end Hoya and B+W filters (and haven't noticed a significant difference between them).

42

Lenses / Re: B+W Filters compared to Promaster Filters?

« on: February 07, 2012, 11:26:20 AM »

Once, long ago, I tried to be cheap and bought a promaster polarizer.  And I was completely unable to focus, it was totally unusable.  Bought a Hoya instead.  So my only comparison is... B+W works and promaster might not.   

43

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100-400mmL IS

« on: January 30, 2012, 08:45:29 AM »

I have yet to hear of a person who *actually owns* the 100-400 complaining about dust.

44

Lenses / Re: EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro vs. EF-S 60 f/2.8 Macro ?

« on: January 29, 2012, 07:21:17 PM »

All macro lenses are very sharp.  Sharpness isn't the main concern.  Focal length is more important. And bokeh, IMHO. Between the two lenses, which one do you think you'll need?  I own the 100mm and love it.  The focal length feels right to me, and I love the bokeh.  I haven't used the 60mm, but owners I know love it too.

To be perfectly honest, if I had to start over, I would not look at resolution values at all, I'd just look at sample images for bokeh to decide which macro lens to buy.

45

United States / Re: Prime lenses you currently own or on your wishlist.

« on: January 24, 2012, 01:47:55 PM »

My current list is very modest...

50mm f/1.4  ... Fast, sharp, great for indoor portraits without flash

100mm f/2.8 USM macro.   I love macro, this is my favorite lens.  Great sharpness and bokeh.

And in the future...

I'm likely to get the 28mm f/1.8 for indoor group shots, but I dream about either the ZE 21mm, or the Canon 24mm f/1.4L.

I'd like the 85mm f/1.8 (I value compactness over speed at times).

Every now and then I want more reach for macro, so the 180 macro would be great.

I'd love a 500mm f/4, but I value domestic tranquility and not sleeping in the doghouse.  For now, the 100-400 does the trick. 

The reality and the wishlist are somewhat different.   

Obviously, the primes have their place, but I do most of my work with zooms.  I came from the era of old film bodies, where primes were pretty much the only option, quality-wise.  Good zooms were rare back in the day.  Now there are many good zooms (and a few truly outstanding ones), so until I have a specific need, I use a zoom.