Messages

481

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review

« on: March 28, 2012, 02:02:27 PM »

Ken Rockwell reviews often put a smile on my face. My favourite quote from this one is:

"The EOS iTR (Intelligent Tracking and Recognition) recognizes subjects based on face and color and employs AF points to continue to track subjects while moving. I presume Japanese faces are given priority."

To Canon autofocus algorithms, all white people look alike...

no pearl habor sideswipe from him this time?

482

EOS Bodies / Re: DPReview Canon 5D mark III noise comparison

« on: March 28, 2012, 01:41:03 PM »

compare it to the 550D sample:

http://i.imgur.com/AYQoL.jpg

yep that does not look good.

483

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review

« on: March 28, 2012, 01:36:58 PM »

FYI, I just received my 5D3 and like most of you, love my gear, but 80% of my focus is still on technique, plus my choice is easy since my glass is Canon.

I have yet to hear one world renowned photographer tout one brand over another, BECAUSE THEY GET IT!

well this is a forum about the technical, gear related, side of photography... what do you expect?

484

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review

« on: March 28, 2012, 01:26:32 PM »

he watermarks productshots clearly taken by the manufacturer with his tag.
something i would never do.

and he is to blame that many beginners crank up the saturation to redicilous amounts.

http://sfcitizen.com/blog/2008/04/20/why-photographer-ken-rockwell-is-wrong-wrong-wrong-about-using-vivid-color-settings/

485

EOS Bodies / Re: Ken Rockwell Updated 5D MK3 Review

« on: March 28, 2012, 12:23:57 PM »

ken "support my growing family" rockwell has some nice opinions.
and every day they change. 

it depends on what article you read if image stabilization, tripods, film, more megapixel etc. is either useless or the best thing since sliced bread.

i bet in 2 month he will write how great the 5D MK3 AF is.

486

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D800 Pictures - IQ

« on: March 28, 2012, 03:51:07 AM »

i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.

im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....

487

EOS Bodies / Re: Women will hate D800 *full size image*

« on: March 28, 2012, 03:49:24 AM »

i don´t know why this forum is called EOS BODIES.. when all the nikon stuff is posted here.

im not interested in reading about nikon when i visit the EOS BODIES forum....

why is no mod moving this thread?

488

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

« on: March 24, 2012, 03:56:58 PM »

well you must understand the DXO scores and how to interpret them.. that is for sure.
unfortunately 90% who look at the scores have no clue at all at what they are looking. 

that is why i have posted the link.

but i guess the 90% are to lazy to read it.....

Dynamic Range corresponds to the ratio between the highest brightness a camera can capture [..] and the lowest brightness [..] when noise is [as strong as the actual signal].

Photographers run out of Dynamic Range once in a while: usually in terms of "burnt" or "clipped" highlights. What DxOMark measures is more subtle: if you make an exposure series, what quality level will the best image have? In photographer-speak, what shadow noise do you get if you do an ideal "expose to the right" exposure. A high Dynamic Range sensor is good, but chances are that you can't print or even view this without special software. The Landscape/Sport/Portrait terms can easily confuse people who take this literally. I am tempted to interpret the 3 metrics as Dynamic Range (as DxO does), Luminance Noise (instead of Low-Light), and Chroma Noise (instead of Color Sensitivity). Those are quantities you find more often in reviews

Here are the problems as I see them. First, DPReview does not consistently apply a noise threshold. So when a DR test hits the 2% luminance threshold before it hits the noise threshold, there is actually more DR available from the sensor and JPEG image and you can actually use it if you bring the in-camera JPEG into Photoshop. In these cases, the reader doesn't get a DR test from DPReview. The reader gets a nice accurate report on the camera's tone curve instead. If the test hits the noise threshold and that is used as the cuttoff point instead, you do have a somewhat reasonable standard of comparison. But that only seems to happen on the high ISO tests, and you have to look carefully at the graphs to determine which tests hit a noise threshold and which ones don't. The noise threshold is a "standard" that isn't always applied. Probably all of the DSLR based lower ISO tests are under-reporting the actual DR because they all hit a tone curve dictated luminance threshold before they hit the noise threshold.

If you want a good indication of DR, you should develop the camera's raw files using no sharpening, no noise reduction, and preferably no gamma correction. Then you can analyze the image using a program that will measure the response and measure the noise. There is no need to concern yourself with luminance levels as a threshold. Those values are completely manipulatable. Testing using a basic linear develope raw like this isn't a perfect solution. [8-13-2010 - A better test is to use the raw data without demosaicing it. In such a test you would simply test only red, blue or green pixels and they would have no processing at all.] Everybody doesn't have the same idea of what is or isn't an acceptable level of noise. Furthermore, noise that measures the same doesn't always look the same. But doing DR tests this way will be far better and have far fewer variables than anything being done by online review sites right now [8-13-2010 - with the possible exception of dxomark testing]. What we have now is a jumbled mess of sorta-sometimes-maybe-right test results.

in the end... i guess you have no clue at all at what noise level you have measured?
and i don´t mean this offensive.

489

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

« on: March 24, 2012, 03:25:27 PM »

I have personally checked DxO's dynamic range results for 3 bodies (10D, 20D, 7D) against a Stouffer transmission step wedge in essentially the same test that is performed at DPReview.com.

well it´s open to discussion if THAT is the right way to measure DR.

but there is enough pro and contra talk about it on the web already.


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml

490

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

« on: March 24, 2012, 03:04:29 PM »

3.) Since the pixel pitch is similar to the 7D, it also means that the DLA is at around f/8 which is something people don't seem to think about with this camera.

what means you will have all the benefits below f8 and no real negative effects above f8.
it´s not as if the 36mp sensor will fall under the resolution of, lets say, a 21mp sensor at a given aperture.

it´s just that the sweetspot is at a more open aperture.
 


 

491

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

« on: March 24, 2012, 02:34:37 PM »

sony/nikon seem to backup those who say SNR is independent from pixelsize.

canon on the other side says 22mp are the optimum for SNR and MP with current technology.

492

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

« on: March 24, 2012, 02:19:56 PM »

which contradicts everything ever said about the disadvantages of high mp sensors. If they'd put in a 22mp sensor too, the big leap forward would be much more obvious because dr/noise would make the Canon sensors look like a past generation.

logic dictates it is either one or the other... but not both.   

if pixelsize has no influence then a 22mp sensor will not be better.

493

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

« on: March 23, 2012, 07:36:14 PM »

i don´t know if i shall congratulate sony or nikon.

i had my doubts... i admit it.
but the sensor seems to be very good.

494

EOS Bodies / Re: dpreview and the 5DmkIII

« on: March 23, 2012, 09:24:47 AM »

i call that bullsh*t.. sorry.

sure everyone has personal preferences.
but not everyone on the planet is a fanboy.

you simply can not do it right with all the conspiracy freaks on the internet.. they see things and schemes everywhere.   

495

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III sensor the same as 5D Mark II?

« on: March 23, 2012, 08:20:19 AM »

"The slight bump in megapixels correlates EXACTLY with the differences in pixel size between the two cameras...thanks for pointing that out...I wasn't aware of it, but that actually helps confirm my point.
(the sensor is 36x24mm in both cameras...the pixel size is 6.25µm in mk3 and 6.4µm in mk2)"

i think the guy is a real genius!!

a 10x10mm sensor has 100 pixels.  pixel size 1 mm^2

another 10x10mm sensor has 400 pixels. pixel size 0,5 mm^2

suprise suprise... the megapixels correlates EXACTLY with the differences in pixel size.

but he says it´s the SAME sensor.. so the pixels have to be.. well the same size.

i think we have a new nobelprize candidate....