December 18, 2014, 12:28:17 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 - jrista

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 320
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 16, 2014, 03:57:10 PM »
I wonder why do from time to time CR begins to make storms out of nothing. I presume when the visitors stats begin to go down he brings an old topic just for the sake of a few tech geeks to comment around and say old crap in a new way.

1/
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.
+1, totally agree! Canon just needs to actually compete on the larger format sensor front. I really hope they do next year...
I do agree as well. However they would need "a-pair-of-good-old-MF-L-lenses". And we have seen 0 patents so far.


I don't mean medium format sensors. Just larger sensors. APS-C and FF are larger, by quite a margin, than the ultra high volume market, which uses sensors a fraction the size of a fingernail most of the time. People don't realize how much larger APS-C and FF sensor are...many times larger. I consider that "larger format". Medium format is a whole different game, and that is not what I'm referring to.

2
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:13:07 PM »
I have some more examples to share. I'll try to get them up today. I think the 5D III is experiencing a little bit of diffraction softening at f/10+, and it seems aberration limited at f/8. Tough call there, but with sharpening, it cleans up pretty nicely.

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Sony Sensors Coming to Canon DSLRs? [CR1]
« on: December 15, 2014, 05:07:45 PM »
I think it would be a mistake for them to surrender chip design--both for Canon and for the users.  There needs to be MORE sensor competition--not less.


+1, totally agree! Canon just needs to actually compete on the larger format sensor front. I really hope they do next year...

4

The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

The statement is a bit skewed. I like these kind of statements because they are half based in reality and enough outside that only pieces of it can be disputed.

However

You need to check how this idea works out in the real world. The distance you need to get closer is no where near 2x as close.

More like 20% closer, maybe a bit more. I have already shot a few test shots on this one with the 7D II.
This is one real world test I have been thinking about doing a bit more. Shoot a test shot with FF at say 30' and then 6 shots at 3' intervals till I am at the same framing 1.6x out. I have already done comparisons at about 1.4x to 1.6 and the FF had much better resolution. It might be a good way to see how much benefit the crop factor really is.

In the concept you offer camera shake is a smaller part of the resolution equation.


I said 2x because that would generally normalize composition within the area of the frame as well (not exactly, but enough). No, you probably don't need to move that full distance forward to start seeing an improvement, but I try to stick to equivalency...otherwise the size of the subject in the frame/the number of pixels on the target, is entirely arbitrary. I think about OOC composition I guess...is the bird framed, in camera, how I want it to be framed? I used to crop...heavily. The only time I crop these days is to straiten or tweak composition...I'm not dropping down to 10-20% of the frame like I did the first six months I had my 7D and 100-400mm. To that end, FF is actually more than 2x the area of APS-C (2.6x, actually), so I wasn't actually stating that you should halve your distance to subject anyway.


This is all beside the point anyway, as all it takes is ONE step, or even to stand up or start standing up, and your target could flee. Birds of the heron family in particular, for example, are extremely skittish birds. If you manage to get close enough to get a decent shot at all, then smaller pixels are going to be a bigger friend to you than getting closer. I can't count how many times just seeing my head barely rise over the top of a ridge was enough to make every heron and egret in the area fly off. Hawks are similar...they can be perfectly content with you sitting there watching them if your not moving. The moment you stand up, they'll leap off their perch and fly right over your head! :P (I've had this happen a few times.) Deer are content to get right up in your face so long as your sitting on the ground...stand up, they'll dance around and huff a few times, then wander off. Outside of wearing a ghillie suit, even in camo deer will spot me. If I stand up, they at the very least stand rigid and take notice. Start moving towards them, and they will often bolt.


It's not necessarily always as easy as taking a few steps closer to your target.


If you are willing to expend the greater amount of time to get closer to really make a difference with FF, you can indeed get some phenomenal shots...but not everyone has that kind of skill or time. That's why the reach argument exists in the first place. A 7D II with a 400mm or 150-600mm lens is going to get a lot more people excellent shots in fairly difficult situations with birds and wildlife than a 5D III with the same lenes. To take it to the next level, a 500mm or 600mm f/4 and some TCs so you can get 1000mm to 1200mm on FF (which would also normalize composition with APS-C at the same distance), is well beyond most people's budgets.


Now, I'm not saying you get more resolution with smaller pixels for free. It takes a lot of effort to hold and KEEP a lens steady while your shooting it. Especially longer lenses, which magnify ever smaller movements. It is possible to maximize the potential of your system, though, small pixels or large. That's my point. We can throw around numbers like 20% or 1.2x or 1.4x or whatever it is all day long. In the end...does your tactic change? Do you actually think in the field, I have 20% bigger pixels, so I can relax my hand-holding technique by 20%? No one does that. You hold yourself, and your gear, steady, as steady as humanly possible, period. You cannot account for the differences in the field...if you try, the chances of experiencing blurry shots with FF are going to be higher, as your not putting your full attention on what matters. Keeping yourself and your gear stable, as stable as you possibly can, with whatever tools are at your disposal to do so (IS, tripod, monopod, beanbags, whatever.)


5
When the Nikon D800 came out, DPR had to beef up their tripods, and take extreme care to get the sharpness that the extra pixels could give.  They spent a lot of extra time and effort in their testing before they learned how to get the expected resolution.  Its virtually impossible for hand held images at normal shutter speeds to make use of that available 36 MP resolution.  So, yes, if you want to get the full resolution that a camera is capable of, sometimes you have to adopt new tactics that were not necessary before.  Those tiny photo sites could fill a 51.7 MP FF sensor, and with a long lens, almost any vibration is going to reduce resolution.  That doesn't mean that images will be blurred, just that they will not be as good as they could be.  I learned that quickly with my 7D, and when hand holding my camera, I doubled shutter speeds or even tripled them where possible.  Then, my images really improved.  I had to force the camera to use high shutter speeds, using Av turned out to be a bad idea.  I believe the 7D MK II allows you the option of faster shutter speeds for a given focal length.  That's a worthwhile feature for those who want to use Av or full automatic.
 
You are right, I do take the same care with my 5D MK III as I did with my 7D. I use faster shutter speeds than with the old 12 MP sensors because it makes a difference.  With my D800, I used it the same way as my 5D MK III, and except for a few bright sunlight, high shutter speed images, there was no noticeable sharpness advantage.  I did appreciate the extra DR for those bright sun low ISO images, but for me, they were the exception, not the rule, because I was shooting in extreme low light much of the time, and struggled to get sharp images with the D800.


Again, I'm not denying the theory. I simply don't see any real-world difference in the impact to my photos when I shoot with the 7D or the 5D III.



Perhaps it is simply because I started with a camera that had 4.3 micron pixels, I don't know. But I tend to get the sharpest shots of all with the 7D and 600mm lens. I had no option but to force myself with the 7D to learn how to stabilize as much as possible to get the best sharpness possible out of that system. I also really DO use the sharpest glass available...perhaps that is skewing my perceptions here. I don't shoot any differently with the 5D III, but unless I'm right on top of my subject at the shortest focal length and fastest apertures possible, the images from that, although maybe less noisy, are usually not sharper than what I get from the 7D. If I shake...it ruins the shot, it doesn't matter which camera I'm using.


Shutter speed is also of paramount importance. With either camera, getting the shutter speed high enough to freeze motion is also critical. I have some skill in freezing motion of fast little birds at very low shutter speeds, but it takes a lot of effort, regardless of the camera. It also usually takes longer bursts to get that one sharp frame (to which the 7D/7D II is going to be more advantaged than the 5D III). These days I just say to hell with it, and jack up the ISO nearly as high as it will go, 3200 on the 7D II, 6400-12800 on the 5D III. That motion-freezing shutter results in critical sharpness, which in and of itself helps diminish the impact of noise.


One thing I will say, diffraction does certainly present earlier with cameras that have smaller pixels. The 5D III is FAR more forgiving of smaller apertures than the 7D ever was. If I was normally shooting at f/8, then I don't think I'd see much of a real-world difference between the two cameras. In a reach-limited situation, I am usually at a faster aperture with the 7D (i.e. 600mm f/4 vs. 1200mm f/8)...the diffraction limited resolving power of a lens at f/4 is significantly higher than at f/8, and assuming a stable frame (I always burst, so there is pretty much always a frame that's razor sharp), that gives the 7D's smaller pixels what they need to be as sharp as possible.


There is also the fact that at 1200mm I suffer from the effects of less camera shake a touch sooner than the 7D at 600mm. So, for any given amount of camera shake, the impact to the image is pretty much the same. There are a number of normalizing forces when it comes to getting the same kind of framing in the real world, and those forces, in a reach limited situation, tend to balance out the "benefit" of larger pixels as far as camera shake goes.


The only time the difference between larger pixels/larger frame and smaller actually matters from a shake standpoint is when you are NOT reach limited, and you can get about twice as close with the same focal length using the larger sensor. In that situation, then your packing far more pixels onto the subject...the larger sensor, pretty much regardless of the pixel size, is going to be easier to manage.

6
You maximize the potential of the system in hand. The amount of effort you put in is high regardless of whether your shooting APS-C or FF. So, personally, I don't really believe the notion that bigger pixels mitigate issues from camera shake or anything like that...

Your belief or lack thereof doesn't change the underlying geometry that determines the relationship between pixel size and the effect of angular motion.


I'm not denying the math. I'm denying we can account for the minuscule differences in pixel size out in the field. People experience blurring from camera shake with every system, with a wide range of lenses, regardless of sensor size or pixel size.


My simple point is, you either hold the lens stable, or you use IS, or not. If you don't, your GOING to experience the effects of camera shake no matter how big your pixels or your sensor.

7
I always try to hold my cameras as steady as possible too. But if I'm using a crop sensor I'll use a faster shutter speed while hand holding because of the crop factor. I try to follow the the 1 over the focal length for my minimum shutter speed. So if I'm shooting a 400 mm lens on my FF I generally won't shoot under 1/400th with a 400mm on a crop sensor I generally won't shoot under 1/640th.


I used to follow those rules, but I think once you get a handle on stability, they don't matter as much. I have shots as low as 1/100th and even slower, hand-held, with IS enabled on my 600mm f/4. At that point, burst rate is really what matters most...as it's the movement of the subject that matters most. The faster the burst, the more likely you are to nab a razor sharp shot, even down to shutter speeds a fraction of the focal length.


For example...Chickadee, 1200mm f/10 1/100s ISO 800. This is 1/100s! SIX STOPS lower than the 1/focalLength rule would dictate I shoot at, and two stops lower than my IS system supposedly allows for. Shot at f/10 with a 2x TC (diffraction limited, which is probably where the sharpness limit is ultimately coming from, although I may be a notch or two off on my AFMA as well):

Original:


Sharpened:


Processed:




You maximize the potential of the system in hand. The amount of effort you put in is high regardless of whether your shooting APS-C or FF. So, personally, I don't really believe the notion that bigger pixels mitigate issues from camera shake or anything like that, or that just taking a step or two forward is going to fix the reach issue. I was getting shots like this with a 500mm f/4 on the 7D. F/4...the diffraction-limited performance of an ideal lens at that aperture is higher than any current DSLR sensor on the market, significantly higher than the diffraction-limited performance of a lens at f/10 (key benefit of using faster lenses on APS-C...smaller pixels that can maximize the performance of a high resolution lens at a fast diffraction-limited aperture).


Faster aperture, more light, sharper details from nearly the same distance as a 1200mm FF in the end (pretty much right on top of the MFD).


Like this:



Or this:


Now, these days I can get close enough to use my bare 600 at f/4-f/6.3 and get phenomenally sharp results with the 5D III. I've just been having fun with the 1200mm f/8 focal length this week, and have been seeing how much I can extract from that particular system. It's useful out in the field, vs. in my back yard, where it is a lot harder to get close to the songbirds I want to photograph.


You maximize the system in hand...and you don't skimp on doing everything that's possible to maximize your results (not if you want the best results possible, anyway). I don't put less effort in to keep my lens stable when using FF than when using APS-C...I put in the maximum effort either way. I think the notion that you cannot get the most out of a sensor like the 7D, or the 70D/7D II, or the even higher resolution NX1, that your perpetually limited to barely any better than what FF can do...I think it's all a myth. If you learn how, and put in the effort, if you use all the features of your system (lens IS, sensor IS, any kind of stabilization, external supports like tripods, beanbags, bracing your arms against your body when handheld, etc.) you can experience camera shake so small that it doesn't affect even the smaller pixels of an APS-C (or the pixels of say the D800, which are quite smaller than anything from Canon's FF sensors...and thus, one would expect, susceptible to the same problems.)


8
The camera shake issue is two fold.
Imagine holding a beam of light like a lazer on two squares, one square over twice the size of the other. Imagine your hand shaking so the light is moving up and down at the same amount on each square. The movement of the light on the smaller square will cover a larger percentage of its area than it will on a large square. Your hand shake is equal, but the area of the sensor on a crop  is smaller and magnifying it. Most people don't get this, distance and FOV do not matter, they are not moving your hand is.
Second your pixels are smaller and if your vibration is over a pixel width your resolution advantage drops quick.



Neat little example. A single point of light pointing at the center of a square. Now, compound the number of squares a few million fold, and instead of one beam of light, you have trillions. All shaking concurrently and synchronously all over this array of a few million squares. Camera shake is camera shake. It's going to soften the image regardless. Light that should fall onto one square is going to fall on more than one square. Acutance is going to drop off precipitously at the first tiny bit of camera shake, and after that it's a diminishing effect.


I have to hold my 5D III as steady as I have to hold my 7D to get the most crisp, sharp shot. In the field, there isn't any difference...I don't think "I can handle X amount of shake with the 5D III" or "I can shake N times more than with my 7D"...I simply hold the lens steady, as steady as humanly possible period, and burst my shots to get a good number of frames so I can pick the sharpest one. There isn't any difference in tactic here, you use FF and APS-C the same way, birds, wildlife, or otherwise.


Do you want to maximize the potential of the system, or not? That's either yes, or no. If yes, then you do everything you can to extract the absolute best out of the system. There is no difference in effort to do that regardless of format...we can't compensate for the microscopic differences in pixels when were out in the field concentrating on a bird. You AFMA with both FF and APS-C. You use IS with both FF and APS-C.


There isn't any difference here. Either you maximize your camera system's potential, or not. You either hold the lens as steady as possible, or not. No one thinks about the size of a pixel or the relative differences in pixel sizes in the field...they simply think: "Keep it stable."


Camera shake is a small part of it, it can be increased by other factors. You loose some light with the crop. Add to this you have to shoot at lower ISO than FF because of noise. To compensate for this you may be shooting at slower shutter speeds.


Conversely, you have to shoot at a higher ISO and a narrower aperture with FF to get the same depth of field. I have been shooting at 1200mm f/8+ for most of the week, to fill the frame with small birds. That results in an incredibly thin DoF. Shooting at 1200mm f/8 roughly normalizes the 5D III FoV, normalizes the DoF, normalizes the amount of light at the sensor, normalizes the amount of noise with an APS-C. If were talking equivalence here, let's truly be equivalent. For all my efforts at 1200mm on FF, I still get even sharper results with a 7D and a 500/4 (which should be expected...at f/8+ I'm getting diffraction limited...at f/4, the 7D is at a perfectly ideal aperture for maximum sharpness).

APS-C has an advantage when it comes to DoF and getting pixels on subject. Yes, it's when your reach limited...but that is most often the case when your not a pro with tens of thousands of dollars worth of gear, or the ability to spend every day of the weak learning how to get extremely close to your subjects.

9
This has been a relatively great debate on these forums, for many years.


Personally, I'm of the opinion that your second paragraph sums it up perfectly. Your going to experience the same camera shake with FF and APS-C, so if it's enough to diminish IQ, it's going to diminish it regardless of what your using. On the flip side, if you work to minimize shake, smaller pixels mean you have the potential to resolve more detail. It doesn't matter if those smaller pixels are in a big or small sensor...smaller pixels are smaller pixels. When your reach limited, smaller pixels mean greater potential for more detail.


I don't care if you have to work harder to get that detail, the potential is still there. I primarily use a 5D III now, but I still believe my sharpest photos ever when reach limited were taken with the 7D and 500mm f/4 and 600mm f/4 lenses at faster apertures (so not diffraction limited.)

10
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:40:23 PM »
The Canon 100-400 could get MUCH sharper than that...and I mean the OLD 100-400...

First of all, the two shots of the chickadees are not necessarily the best I have or even representative of the lens but they are the only two I have of that North American bird (I am in the UK), but they are similar to your shot of the chickadee.

Secondly, the quality is comparable to those of yours from the 100-400, when comparing them side-by-side and certainly not MUCH less sharp.


I was never able to get very sharp shots with the old 100-400 on a 7D. Top is a dunnock at 400 on the 7D, typical of my efforts, below is a dunnock taken on the 300/2.8 + 2xTC III on the 5D3. They are chalk and cheese.


You know, looking at your images again...the birds do not appear to actually be in focus. Well, the first one, I'm not sure...that whole image has a softish appearance. However the second one, below the bird and a little forward everything gets very sharp. I was looking at the birds only before, and I was seeing softness. Going by your second image (of the original two you posted), I'd say the 150-600 is acceptably sharp.


Regarding the dunnock shot with the 7D, it also looks focused a little forward of the bird. That just sounds like an AFMA issue.


I've found that the great whites are pretty much dead on for the most part. My 600 is at 0 AFMA on all my bodies, except with the 2x TC, where I had to move it to +5 AFMA. My 100-400, I actually had to tweak the AFMA a lot on that...and I think in the end I ended up around -15 or -18. That was with FoCal as well, and I've learned that FoCal may not really be as accurate as it seems....which may just be due to the quality of the printed target, not sure. I bet my 100-400 could get a lot sharper if I sent it in with my body to have it adjusted...but then I'd be out my camera and a lens for a while, and it would be an extra cost. I plan to sell that lens anyway, so I'll leave it up to the buyer to have it adjusted for their body if they need (which they very well may not).

My 600 by itself AFMAs around +4 which is reasonable which leads me to think my 2Xiii may be out of kilter...though it's not WAY out on my other lenses.  I wonder if they can adjust the extenders electronically rather than needing to do it physically?

It took me a long time as well to realize FoCal is not more accurate than doing it manually using a scale.  There are way too many factors that can affect the results, not to mention the constant tinkering with their algorithms.  I actually had better success in their earlier versions and then things got complicated and went downhill.  IMHO.


As far as I can tell, when I AFMA with the 600+TC, it actually shows "600 f/4 L + 1.4x TC" or "600 f/4 L + 2x TC" in the AFMA screen. So, I believe the camera considers the lens with a TC to be different than the lens without, meaning each combination can be independently AFMAed.


BTW, setting AFMA does not actually change the lenses or TCs. It just registers the offset in camera memory, and the offset is applied to AF commands. So, when the camera tells the lens to move the focus group, it tells them to move WITH the offset already applied. The lenses never change, only the body changes. That's why you can AFMA a lens on multiple bodies concurrently, an the adjustment will stick for each body...only the body is actually being modified.

11
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 03:26:13 PM »
The Canon 100-400 could get MUCH sharper than that...and I mean the OLD 100-400...

First of all, the two shots of the chickadees are not necessarily the best I have or even representative of the lens but they are the only two I have of that North American bird (I am in the UK), but they are similar to your shot of the chickadee.

Secondly, the quality is comparable to those of yours from the 100-400, when comparing them side-by-side and certainly not MUCH less sharp.


I was never able to get very sharp shots with the old 100-400 on a 7D. Top is a dunnock at 400 on the 7D, typical of my efforts, below is a dunnock taken on the 300/2.8 + 2xTC III on the 5D3. They are chalk and cheese.


You know, looking at your images again...the birds do not appear to actually be in focus. Well, the first one, I'm not sure...that whole image has a softish appearance. However the second one, below the bird and a little forward everything gets very sharp. I was looking at the birds only before, and I was seeing softness. Going by your second image (of the original two you posted), I'd say the 150-600 is acceptably sharp.


Regarding the dunnock shot with the 7D, it also looks focused a little forward of the bird. That just sounds like an AFMA issue.


I've found that the great whites are pretty much dead on for the most part. My 600 is at 0 AFMA on all my bodies, except with the 2x TC, where I had to move it to +5 AFMA. My 100-400, I actually had to tweak the AFMA a lot on that...and I think in the end I ended up around -15 or -18. That was with FoCal as well, and I've learned that FoCal may not really be as accurate as it seems....which may just be due to the quality of the printed target, not sure. I bet my 100-400 could get a lot sharper if I sent it in with my body to have it adjusted...but then I'd be out my camera and a lens for a while, and it would be an extra cost. I plan to sell that lens anyway, so I'll leave it up to the buyer to have it adjusted for their body if they need (which they very well may not).

12
I have never particularly cared for Lik's work. Most of the time it looks drastically over-processed, with a massive amount of powerful saturation. Lik totally fell off the radar for me once he started stealing other photographer's work (ironically from a rather prolific blogger and trendy photographer) and lied about a clearly (and poorly) composited "moon" photo for which there was this ridiculous and overly dramatic story about how Lik "took the shot", all about "bringing the giant lens up, seeing the moon framed...yadda yadda bull-shiiit".


Lik. Publicity whore. Saturation freak. Liar. Thief.  ???

13
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:27:39 AM »

Alright. Here is a set of shots taken with the 7D and 100-400 L (original). I grabbed a few, with birds of varying sizes in frame, to bring some diversity of pixels-on-target to demonstrate that isn't necessarily the issue with the 150-600. These are all original shots, original crop, no scaling, no processing, no sharpening or NR of any kind. Strait out of camera RAW exported to 75% quality JPEG from Lightroom.














Every image here appears to be sharper than the 150-600mm shots. To be fair, one of your shots seems to have some motion blur. For the other, I cannot say, not really sure if there is any motion blur or not, but it still seems a little soft. Not as sharp as either my 100-400 shots or my 1200mm f/10 chickadee. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of the idea of an affordable lens that reaches 600mm. For the novice or budget birder, I think having such a lens is a HUGE benefit. That said, if the sharpness from your example shots is around the best the lens can do at 600mm, then I'm rather disappointed. I'm happy to accept if the issue is technique, or too slow a shutter speed, or lack of IS use (or IS kicking in and screwing up the shot), etc. If you can demonstrate as much, then more power too you, prove me wrong! :P But, as it stands, I don't think the sharpness of those shots is what I would call "ideal"...I think my 100-400 does better, and my 600 with a 2x TC at 1200mm f/10 (!!) does better.

14
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 12, 2014, 12:27:30 AM »

Alright. Here is a set of shots taken with the 7D and 100-400 L (original). I grabbed a few, with birds of varying sizes in frame, to bring some diversity of pixels-on-target to demonstrate that isn't necessarily the issue with the 150-600. These are all original shots, original crop, no scaling, no processing, no sharpening or NR of any kind. Strait out of camera RAW exported to 75% quality JPEG from Lightroom. (Blame CR forums for links to images instead of just images...I don't know what it was doing, but it wouldn't let me post with them embedded as images.)


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


http://i.imgur.com/Z2vWEQF.jpg


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


http://i.imgur.com/ZBAK66E.jpg


Every image here appears to be sharper than the 150-600mm shots. To be fair, one of your shots seems to have some motion blur. For the other, I cannot say, not really sure if there is any motion blur or not, but it still seems a little soft. Not as sharp as either my 100-400 shots or my 1200mm f/10 chickadee. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of the idea of an affordable lens that reaches 600mm. For the novice or budget birder, I think having such a lens is a HUGE benefit. That said, if the sharpness from your example shots is around the best the lens can do at 600mm, then I'm rather disappointed. I'm happy to accept if the issue is technique, or too slow a shutter speed, or lack of IS use (or IS kicking in and screwing up the shot), etc. If you can demonstrate as much, then more power too you, prove me wrong! :P But, as it stands, I don't think the sharpness of those shots is what I would call "ideal"...I think my 100-400 does better, and my 600 with a 2x TC at 1200mm f/10 (!!) does better.

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Dpreview: Review of the 7D2
« on: December 11, 2014, 11:29:05 PM »
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/12


I'm happy to see the improvement in noise characteristics on the 7D II here. No vertical banding that I can see. That's extremely nice. This test demonstrates the "color blotch" on the 5D III that I see all the time. I utterly despise that...but it may be editor related. I used to integrate my astro images with DeepSkyStacker (DSS), which is a nice program, fast, does it's job reasonably well. It uses AHD, Adaptive Homogeneity-Directed demosaicing, the same as Lightroom and ACR (and an option in RawThearapy and DarkTable as well.)


I recently started integrating with PixInsights Batch Preprocessing script (BPP), and the results are considerably better. Color noise is much lower. Finer details are better rendered. Color is better, deeper. The noise takes on a cleaner, more random nature. I noticed that it does not use AHD demosaicing, instead it uses an alternative algorithm called VNG.


Anyway...there is no question that the 5D III has banding, but it may be that the horrid color blotch that I hate is not "in" the RAW data...it's more a consequence of demosaicing. If that is the case, then I truly hope Adobe catches on, and revisits the use of AHD, at the very least they could add the option to choose the demosaicing algorithm in the settings or something like that, including VNG as an option.


On a side note...DAMN! Give me that ultra clean quality noise of the D7000 any day! :P *drool* That's even a bit better than what I'm seeing from the NX1.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 320