September 02, 2014, 01:47:29 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
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.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 06:07:43 PM »
Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)

jrista check this, your half on the money.
Also agree this guys work is amazing.

Finally found a Post on this thread I felt I could respond to, Thanks.


If you are referring to this:

What was your first camera? And what is your current?:
A Canon AE-1, and currently I use both a Canon 5D Mark III and Nikon D800 on my Nikon setup. I prefer the D800 for most landscape projects currently but I’m not giving up on Canon either!

I know he has the 5D III, however if you look at the stuff he has posted recently on 500px, it all seems to be D800 (and it's REALLY FREAKING GOOD stuff, too:

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:44:25 PM »
Canon 17-40 lens @17mm on other kind of camera.

Wow, that's one hell of a shot!

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:42:22 PM »


 For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.


I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.

I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.

OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.

My frustration is just with the fact that Canon, which actually seems to have done a better job with the 6D sensor only months later (which means it was already in production and ready to go), put such a noisy sensor in the 5D III. If they had made such significant improvements to the 6D, both at low ISO and high, why did the 5D III get one of their noisiest sensors to date? It's just frustrating.

And it may just be a matter of aesthetic appeal. I go through and like a lot of photography on sites like 500px, 1x, and sometimes Flickr. There is this specific trait that I only see in D800 photos in the way light falls off into shadow that I've never seen from any Canon camera. The images have the right amount of contrast...but there are no harsh or sudden transitions into shadow...things just...smoothly, softly, cleanly fade into deep shadow. I LOVE that. I've admired that for years now. I saw it in landscapes taken with the D7000 before even the D800. I put some extra money (not a lot, I got really good deals on both) into Nik and Topaz filter collections, in an attempt to try and replicate that look.

I just don't think that look is possible so long as Canon's read noise remains as it is. So, I guess I'm just resolved to focus in my bird/wildlife and astrophotography, and maybe play around with 50mm f/1.4 landscapes (I never used that lens for landscapes before, but I actually really, REALLY like it):

Crisp detail, but soft transitions, smooth falloff into shadow without obliterating detail in noise, etc. I love that. I get a some of that with the 50mm maybe I'll stick with that for a while until something changes. Maybe Canon will figure out their noise problems and release a 5D IV with more DR and more pixels. Maybe I'll find the funds for both the QSI CCD and a D800+14-24 (doubtful...and I'd rather get the QSI.) Anyway. It's an aesthetic I simply cannot seem to replicate with Canon cameras. One I've never really seen achieved with any Canon camera by anyone, with maybe a couple exceptions like Marc Adamus (although, I think he may have moved to a D800 as well...and his work tends to be a bit overly saturated for my tastes.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 276