December 22, 2014, 12:24:09 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 - AvTvM

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 80
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 11, 2014, 10:57:44 AM »
nice pics. But I don't think the subjects in either of the 2 images would have behaved differently had you taken the camera to the eye to capture the image.  ;D

And even when a digital camera does has a viewfinder, there is no obligation to use it for every capture. One can still stick with LCD and "stretched-out arms snapshooter salute".  ;)

17
Landscape / Re: Mountains, Lakes and Rivers
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:18:46 AM »
Standing on frozen dam is so much fun, you never know if if will cracks a hole and consume you to wet feet. Superb sunset among the horizon, shame that I am not at higher ground but otherwise I'm happy with this.
taking the risk has paid off nicely here!  :)
Outstanding image, just love it! Chapeau!
Thanks for showing!

Btw: where is it?

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D mkIV
« on: December 11, 2014, 03:28:10 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)

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 11, 2014, 02:26:45 AM »
Exactly. One of the many advantages of mirrorless systems.
Equally important: an electronic viewfinder displays a visible image to look at even in very low light and at f/8 or f/11 ... as opposed to optical viewfinders. In conjunction with ever better hi-ISO capable sensors mirrorless cameras are already expanding imaging capabilities beyond what is possible with mirrorslapping cameras.

Samsung NX1 is a good example for that. At 15fps it is faster than the 7d ii, has a better sensor, and the on-sensorhybrid AF-system appears ti be at least on par with 7d ii as well. Just wait a little until the announced samsung 300/2.8 becomes available and possibly tele-extender 2.0x .. We are lokoing at the first mirrorless entries that are vapable to challenge, match and soon surpass DSLRs in the very field of photography that naysayers eanted to make us believe mirrorslappers could not be beat for many years to come: fast action, long tele stuff, wildlife, air shows, BIF ...

More mirrorless goodness is in the pipeline ... Sony A9 ... might be really really good. Looking forward to see what comes next. :)

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 01:10:04 PM »
Please tell me they aren't developing this lens...I thought 6.3 on the long end was bad enough but 7.2 is not good.
    It's plenty good enough for daylight wildlife photography.  Don't want it? Don't buy it!

yea ... but with the current EOS-M bodies you'll first need to use a tranquilizer gun on the wildlife ...  :P ;D
well, for zoo animals dozing in bright sunshine it should be sufficient ...

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 03:01:07 AM »
I could not find it with Google patent search. Where do they patent it?

Japan? -> cr quotes Egami as source: http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2014-12-10

22
Landscape / Re: Mountains, Lakes and Rivers
« on: December 10, 2014, 02:01:40 AM »
Laguna Toncek, Patagonia Argentina
Canon 6D + Rokinon 14, ISO 100, 1/25 sec

I really like this shot.  Well done.

+1

23
Interesting. I hope he does more testing...very curious to see how the Samsung products (not just the body, but the lenses as well) compare overall, at the wide and long, at max aperture and f/8.

I think chances are very good, since Roger seems to be personally interested in the nx1 himself. :)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: EF-M 70-400 f/4.5-7.2 STM
« on: December 10, 2014, 01:49:03 AM »
Not interested in the lens, but i also take it as a sign, that a samsung NX1-style EOS-M "Pro" is coming. Evf, good af, good performance, 7d II sensor plus larger body, better grip for all those whining about mirrorless cameras being "too small to handle".  ;D

I still predict 2, maybe even 3 new M bodies:
• eos m "pro" - samsung nx1/fuji xt1 competitor
• eos m3 - upgrade from m2 - as small as possible, no evf
• eos m3 "plus" - sony a6000 competitor, small, with evf
All three would sell well ... If specced abd proced competitively.
If indeed released ... End of dslr rebels imminent :)

25
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.

26
I was looking at the comparison before/after ... that you posted earlier. 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=24028.0;attach=127750;image

Sorry, but to me it does not look good, afterwards.
Personally, I would lift exposure by about +1 EV globally on a capture like your original image - but not more.
Heck, it is a dark environment, deep in the shade. I find it perfectly OK if the resulting image also shows this.

But again, I do not want to pick a fight here. Quite likely that some of you here have far superior PP skills to mine and that you get away with shadows +3 EV pulled up from a Canon (7D or similar crop) sensor . At least in some pictures.

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.

I just know, that *I* would NOT be able to create the image linked in the starting post (Erez) from a single exposure on a Canon 7D or any other crop sensro (except 7D II which I don't know anything about yet).

And I also know first hand what some of my budies can do with Raws from D7100, A7, D800. There is a whole magnitude more potential to lift shadows in low ISO captures.

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.

27
I don't know if someone has already put this up, but TheCameraStoreTV has up Hand-On Field Test for both NX1 & 7DII:
NX1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1flm65f2Gy8

that one is already posted discussed earlier on in the thread. I find it remarkably stupid made. The guys have no clue whatsoever. They did not bother at all to familiarize themselves at last a little bit with the camera settings. The guy is not able to selct the right AF-setup and terefore does not even manage to track his mate walking rather slowly towards him. To me it is not the camera that fails, but the two testers.

After having watched the video, I have absolutely no idea, how good, bad, capable, incabable the NX-1 is.

I would be really ashamed to put such a video on youtube and call it a "camera test".   :P

28
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.

29
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.

Also .. the image you have linked to is not even remotely comparable, and neither is the other one with the tree trunk. No sky at all in it, not to mention sun directly in the frame ... as in the linked picture in the starting post.

I have extensively used the 7D for 5 years and postprocessed many raw-pics captured with it. The picture linked in post 1 is absolutely NOT possible from one exposure with a 7D.

I have not worked with RAWs from Canon FF cameras enough ... but I *strongly believe* the picture exactly as linked in post 1 of this thread is also not possible from one exposure with any current Canon FF EOS camera. At least when it is on regular Canon firmware, not ML.

And on top of the DR difference I won't even mention "36 megapixels".

30

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.

MagicLantern DualISO...

Does it work on 7d ? I thought ML had a hard time running at all on 7d because of the dual digic setup?

Anyway, as i said before i will definitely stay away from installing ml or other third party firmware on my camera/s, due to possible compatibility and/or warranty issues or other "unwanted side effects". But of course that is just me, ymmv.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 80