September 02, 2014, 03:22:48 AM

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 - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 276
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 03:19:18 AM »
I'll never buy a Sony camera so long as they use a lossy compressed file format. Maybe that's just more of the high standards crap...I dunno. But, there it is.

You'll never buy a camera that's relatively cheap ($1,300 for the A7), can use your lenses, and solves the problem which you have spent countless hours making...hundreds?...thousands?...of posts about because of a file format that maybe, on rare occasion, might result in an artifact, even though otherwise the camera completely eliminates the noise and artifacts you're so upset about???

I'm done...I'm more SoNikonSuperMegaDR threads. I can't help these people. They need therapists, not sensors.

I don't even believe there are yet 100 posts on the subject. If I've written 50 posts on the subject, it would be surprising. You guys are just as crazy with your wild exaggerations and twisting of words...anything to preserve your pristine view of Canon. Which is can keep seeing your gear and the company that makes them however you like.

BTW, I never asked for, nor needed, your "help". You don't even seem to understand the fundamental underlying concepts if you really, honestly think that the 70D has more DR than any other Canon camera on the market. I don't think anyone else here agrees with you on that point, and certainly no one anywhere else on the net, reviewers or forum goers, would agree with you either. I think you've twisted Photographic DR into something that handily "proves" (in your own mind) that Canon is right up there with their competitors, when that is the farthest thing from the truth.

However, I'm not really here to prove anything to anyone. I'm just...ticked off and frustrated. Canon's core technology hasn't changed in years. It's been fundamentally the same since I first got into photography, I've been longing for them to deliver a powerhouse landscape camera since before the 5D III was even announced (basically, since I first learned about the K-5's then-magical DR, and not long after that the D7000's DR, which got all the limelight, but in actuality was never as good as the K-5's I don't think.) We have two weeks until Photokina. I guess we'll see the REAL state of Canon technology then. I hope for a 1-2 stop improvement in DR somewhere. I hope for a fundamental shift in sensor technology, how it's fabricated, how it's designed. I expect...well, nothing significant anywhere...really. I truly HOPE I'm wrong...

I don't get much chance to go out and photograph landscapes anyway. When I do, I rarely get the kind of lighting and weather I want. Good landscapes are always a couple hours drive away at least. Figure I'll just focus on what I can do in the limited time I have...and what my current gear doesn't drive me up a wall fiddling with NR for: Birds, Wildlife, Macro, Astrophotography.

Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: Today at 02:16:43 AM »
Great!  Three lenses in which I have absolutely no interest.  Canon is saving me money all over the place!

There are three lenses that interest me right now and, would you believe it, they're all Tamrons!
If Canon were to introduce any three lenses, you can guarantee that a fair share of photographers out there will have zero interest in the products.

Each one of these rumoured lenses, if well executed, could have a great reputation and sales for their segment - regardless of whether they suit my needs or yours.

The 100-400L replacement is already 10 years overdue.  A 24-70/2.8 IS is also way overdue.  Yet, they're looking at a 400/4DO II that maybe a few thousand people will buy, ever while these mainstream lenses are missing?

I think it really depends on how it reviews, and how light weight it really is. The original 400 DO had certain problems due to the diffraction grating approach they used. If Canon figured out particle dispersion DO, then the IQ could rival that of standard optics, but in a much smaller package.

If it reviews well, I think plenty of people would buy one. The original reviewed ok, with the exception that the softish glow caused by the diffraction grating was usually mentioned as the primary detractor.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 01:57:45 AM »
What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality in a Canon DSLR body.

You have the budget for a $12k lens but you haven't ordered one of the Sony A7's yet?  :o

If you can afford a lens that's the price of a small car...if HDR landscapes are that important to you...if you really believe Exmor will revolutionize how you shoot HDR landscapes...then order the A7 or A7R and an EF adapter.

You don't even have to switch. You don't have to give up your Canon lenses, or your DSLRs in situations where you need fast AF and shooting. (And please don't tell me you always need to push shadows 5 stops so the Sony doesn't solve anything. Most scenes don't have that great of a luminance range.)

Shooting sports, action, any scene that doesn't require shadows pushed 9,001 stops? Grab the 5D3.

Shooting landscapes or interiors from a tripod? Grab the Sony. That should hold you over until Canon changes their ADC architecture.

Problem solved.

I HAD the budget for a $12k lens. That budget came out of some preferred company stock I sold. I have also explained on many occasions why I have no interest in Sony bodies. You can scan back in this thread to find that.

I also have an endless list of photography needs and wants. Four grand for a QSI 683WSG-8 CCD camera. Another grand or few for an 8-10" telescope. Longer term I want to get 16-20" telescope, which necessitates another $20k investment in a high end equatorial mount on top of the $7k-$10k investment in the telescope.

On top of that, I have a bunch of other Canon lenses I have been putting off for years. The TS-E 17mm and 24mm. The MP-E 65mm. (Either that, or one of those really nice bellows: Novoflex Castbal T/S) The 85L. I'd like to pick up a few more flashes, from Canon's RT system, and start doing Hummingbird flash photography (the last couple years I've been bulking up my yard with flowers that attract them in the first place. :P)

I'm not made of money. Have to pick and choose.

Now, if Canon DOES release a nice high DR FF camera early next year...I can just sell the 5D III and buy the new and improved model. The overall cost then would be minimal. Hell of a lot less than adding a D810 and lens to my kit, and not really offsetting to any of my other goals.

As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?

To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D

D810: $3300
14-24mm: $2000

'Just switching' to Nikon with a single body and lens is no cheap endeavor. Especially if the primary purpose is just for one type of photography. Throw in various necessary accessories, the price gets up to nearly $6000.

It is also possible that Canon meets the vast majority of your needs for everything but that one or two types of photography.

You CAN be discontent and still stuck with a system that isn't delivering what you need, want, and are unwilling to dump money into an alternative/additional brand for.

Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.

Pot heads...

Isn't jrista from Colorado?

Sorry, no offense meant, just couldn't resist.   8)

I am, and the pot smoke tends to just waft around here. Aside from third-party exposure, I've never partaken myself. :P (And never intend to...although I actually know some of the top growers here...crazy biz, weed iz!)

I came from the D.A.R.E. generation, and was brought up in a home where none of that was tolerated (and, it was never an issue, I think my first drink was at 19, and that was just a couple glasses of wine, not some debacherous night at the local school boy's big ass pool party bash). :P

I think a big part of that "look" is the higher contrast, washed out highlights, and lower color saturation. To achieve that, you don't necessarily need light, light, light. I'd offer that the lighting of the examples posted by the OP was far from great...I think post processing played a big role in the final look and feel. Not to say that you should be botching your shots in camera, it's still important to get that part right...but I think Agierke is underweighting the value of post processing those shots.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D 4 & 1DX II @ Photokina?
« on: Today at 01:04:36 AM »
Who cares? Every thread will be hijacked by people telling us our cameras are crap, even if we are happy with them they will try and tell us why we shouldn't be, even when we tell them we understand their point, and it is valid, they will still go on and on and on and on..........
serenity now!

I try, I truthfully try, but it is like a car accident, you really don't want to look as you drive by but for some morbid reason you can't stop yourself. Now they are saying you can't print a Canon file from any camera above 13" x 19", they honestly believe there is a 36% deficiency in Canon sensors, though how you can quantify that to 36% is a mystery, they are crazy, truthfully crazy. Don't they realise they sound like the crazy guy in the parking lot at the mall?

I think I am not going to log in for a few days.

Don't beat around the bush, man. Why not actually use my name? Just call me crazy and be done with it.

BTW, I went through the math. You can disagree with the method if you wish, that's your prerogative, but you know EXACTLY HOW I quantified that 36%. You have also gravely misinterpreted what those calculations represented...or, since I know your an intelligent individual, your just purposely misrepresenting what I said. In the end, I still demonstrated that the 1D X had the either you only read part of that post, or, again, your purposely misrepresenting.

Anyway, not here to hijack the thread. Just, PBD, you want to call me me out. Don't beat around the bush.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 12:43:36 AM »
To be clear, I have never said I want to jump ship. On the contrary, I really WANT to stay with Canon. For the same reasons as LuckyDude...I have a lot of money in Canon class, and aside from the 16-35 (very poor in the corners), I love it all. The 600 f/4 II is unsurpassed.

What I really want is Nikon-level sensor quality in a Canon DSLR body. I don't want to have to buy multiple kits, especially when I have a gazillion accessories for Canon. It might start with the D810 and a 14-24...then, you find a reason to get another lens, then a flash, then a cable release, then...on and on. IMO, my personal opinion, it would suck having a kit with two brands. You end up replicating cost, just do you can have something for a more niche purpose.

There is also the Nikon customer support issue. I've heard 10x as many nightmare stories about Nikon CS compared to Canon CS. I've had EXCELLENT support from Canon CS when I needed it, with fast turnaround. That's another reason I'd rather NOT add Nikon to my kit, and another reason I'd prefer Canon fix their noise problems and deliver a camera that meets the modern needs of modern landscape photographers. (There is more to this end of the argument as well...Nikon manufacturing quality, with spots on lenses, spotty AF behavior, unwillingness to acknowledge such defects half the time, etc.)

It would be most ideal to have Exmor-level IQ in a Canon body. Then you can have the best of everything all in a single brand. That is what I personally want. That's what I'm asking for. I hope, but frankly don't believe, Canon will deliver it. I expect that it MIGHT arrive in some camera a couple generations from now...however by that time, it'll be way beyond too late.  ::)

Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:31:16 PM »
Dont know if you can call this deep sky astrophoto but here is my version of andromeda
Untracked/unguided 5sec single shot. 200mm f/2.8 iso 6400

Definitely deep sky. Nice results for a single shot. Especially only FIVE SECONDS! :D Well done.

Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:29:30 PM »
Wonderful photos, guys! Glad you all have stuff to share...I thought this forum was missing something. ;)

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:26:30 PM »
So why no EVF on the 7D2 ???

Because EVF still sucks for action and sports.

If you watch the Super Bowl, World Cup, etc on Television, tell me how bad it was ??? 'cuz they use cameras with EVFs.

Realize that the EVFs used in high end cinematography equipment are VASTLY superior to the kinds of EVFs currently found in ML cameras. VASTLY superior. Also vastly more expensive. Just one of the EVFs used in a RED Dragon camera costs more than most of the DSLRs we buy today.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 09:25:00 PM »
If more people start "spouting the same sort of crap" then maybe it isn't "crap."

You or anyone else stating that Canon sensors produce unusable images, images suitable only for Facebook, images suitable for printing at only up to 8x10" or 13x19", etc., is spouting crap.  Period. 

Where are you getting that from? Have you actually read anything I've written? My primary concerns are about aesthetics and the amount of time required to work a photo to achieve that aesthetic goal. I also said that WITHOUT a lot of work, large prints have mushy shadow detail...not that the images are ONLY suitable for printing at 8x10 or 13x19.

Your still twisting my words, Neuro. That is absolutely NO better than what your twisted words are trying to imply I am saying.

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:15:41 PM »
Forest Boke

5D III and 50mm f/1.4

Give 85L II and/or 50L a try  ;)

I'd love to use the 85L. I'm not sure the spherical aberration in the 50L would really do what I want for landscapes. I would actually prefer sharper detail in the foreground. A Sigma 50, and certainly an Otus, would probably be perfect!

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:14:31 PM »
I guess I disagree that the 5D III was only intended as an event/low light camera. The 5D II was the most popular landscape DSLR on the planet until the D800 came along. It's one of only two cameras in Canon's current lineup that really offers what's needed for landscapes anyway...large frame, high megapixel count...well, certainly lacking in the DR area. The 6D is the other option...but it lacks in the areas for all my other kinds of photography. Ironically, the 6D has 26.8e- RN, and does even better at high ISO than the 5D III...really confused as to why Canon did not put the 6D image sensor and readout pipeline into the 5D III...the latter did not come out much later after the 5D III...

It is rumored that the 5DIII should have been out earlier but that its release was delayed by natural disasters (Fukushima plus whatever else was going on at the time.) Thus the small release window between the 5DIII and 6D should have been much larger.

Ah, yeah, there was the natural disasters. Well, still, rather disappointing noise levels from the 5D III. It should never have been worse read noise than the 5D II.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:13:10 PM »
The reason I see noise in the shadows is when you expose to preserve the highlights, you push the rest of the exposure down. This is the opposite of ETTR. This is basically what highlight tone priority does.

No, highlight tone priority changes the way JPEGs are rendered in the camera.

ETTR is push the histogram as far right as possible without clipping detail required. Specular highlights may be sacrificed, depending on the photographer. This is based on a "normal exposure" leaving a gap at the right of the histogram. If there is no gap then ETTR is a corrected exposure that provides maximal detail without blowing more than specular highlights.

I know that HTP only affects JPEGs, however it bumps the ISO, exposes the highlights such as to avoid clipping, then pulls the ISO back down one stop (hence the reason the minimum ISO when using HTP is 200). That is, effectively, shifting the histogram to the LEFT.

As for ETTR...if a scene meters such that the highlights clip, you can't ETTR. Your already past the point where shifting the histogram right will improve anything. Clipping highlights is far more destructive to information than pushing them down into the shadows. So, you shift the histogram LEFT again, until the highlights are not clipped. If the scene has a ton of DR...then you bury a lot of detail in the read noise floor. It's the only alternative to clipping highlights...and in Canon cameras, it's almost as bad.

Also, as far as having a gap at the end, you want a very small one (on a REAL histogram JPEG-based histograms are generally useless, and you have to muck around to figure out what the offset between a JPEG clipped highlight and a RAW clipped highlight might be, or use UniWB.) You don't want the RAW-based histogram to ride up the wall, or to even touch it. If it's touching, then at least one color channel is getting clipped. A one-pixel gap is enough of a cap to ensure that you haven't lost any highlight detail, or if your scene contains only small specular highlights, then a small bump at the right edge is usually ok.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 276