September 01, 2014, 10:58:30 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 ... 275
1
Landscape / Re: Deep Sky Astrophotography
« on: Today at 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.

2
Landscape / Re: Within Forests
« on: Today at 09:29:30 PM »
Wonderful photos, guys! Glad you all have stuff to share...I thought this forum was missing something. ;)

3
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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.

5
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: Today at 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!

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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 anyway...in-camera 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.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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.

http://fstopgear.com/staffpro/marc-adamus
Also agree this guys work is amazing.

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

Welcome.

If you are referring to this:

Quote
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: http://500px.com/photo/36687326/heaven-on-earth-by-marc-adamus).

9
Canon 17-40 lens @17mm on other kind of camera.

Wow, that's one hell of a shot!

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 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 lens...so 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 thing...one 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.)

11
Landscape / Within Forests
« on: Today at 05:30:39 PM »
I noticed there wasn't a thread dedicated to forest landscapes. The purpose of this thread is to show off your photos where your right there, in a forest, jungle, rainforest, etc. Aspens, Redwoods, Pines...if your surrounded by trees of any kind, it's a forest. ;)

Forest Boke

5D III and 50mm f/1.4







12
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: Today at 05:26:23 PM »
Forest Boke

5D III and 50mm f/1.4







13
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 04:53:11 PM »
Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!!   ;) ;D

a sign of passion...

Heh, thanks. ;)

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 04:31:11 PM »
I don't get it jrista. Just go a buy a d810+14-24mm and be done with it. Why continue with the long posts?

Eh, I dunno. I don't have infinite money. I can either buy a QSI683 CCD camera, which is about four grand. Or, I could buy a D810+14-24mm, which is about $5300. I also need to pick up a larger telescope, which is going to be about a grand. The D810+14-24 would eat into the budget for that as well.

Ditto with RLP - or just go get an A7r with adaptor (keep your canon glass). 

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.

But, I keep readfing your posts and can't help but think ---what did you expect????  the 5d3 is primarily an event/low light camera - that's what it was designed for and it does excel at that.  You want to do more landscapes, great, go do it - and don't be so scared to just get what you need.  What's on the market is on the market as it were.  Canon has what it has, Nikon has what it has, Sony has what it has.  Screaming at canon will not make the product your demanding appear.  Money will talk though.  If sales of A7's leap, and research finds it's owners of lots of canon glass that's buying them, that will make canon take notice.  Writing books on a forum that isn't even part of Canon is just blowing steam. 

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...

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 04:15:32 PM »
I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.

Trimming most of your post because...how on Earth do you even find time to write that much? And that's coming from someone who writes too much on forums!  :o

It doesn't take  lot of time when you've been typing since the age of six, programming since the age of eight, and have been programming for a living for some twenty years with a WPM count over 100. :P I can type nearly as fast as I think.

All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending two frames.

For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.

I can only guess because I've never been out shooting with you to observe what you're doing. But you talk as if every landscape you do has horrendous shadow noise. If that's happening then you need to adjust your shooting and processing.

You've built up in your mind how much better an Exmor sensor would be, how it would revolutionize your workflow. It's better, but it's not going to revolutionize your workflow or eliminate HDR/GND. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a D810 or a Sony A7 series if you want one. Just don't build up Exmor so high in your mind that you buy one and end up complaining on their boards.

This has absolutely nothing to do with technique. My technique is not the problem. Neither is it an exposure problem. If you've actually read anything I've posted on the subject of my recent landscape photos, you would already know that I bracket all my landscape photos. Three or five frames usually. I always bracket. Always have, always will. You never really know if you want it for a landscape, so it's just my standard MO.

I've already blended HDRs for all of my photos, but also as I mentioned before...HDR blends are not perfect either, and they have their fair share of artifacts.

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. It's ETTL...you shift the histogram to the left, to pull the highlights back from the right-hand edge of the histogram. The goal, to make sure you have the necessary highlight fidelity, is for your saturation level in the image to top out at around 245 on average (8-bit, it scales to 16-bit). You WANT some headroom above that...you don't want to expose right to 255. That's where you end up clipping one or two color channels, which mucks with your ability to recover highlights with accurate color. To do that, you drop the shadows...you bury more detail in the READ NOISE.

This is where your Photographic DR is unhelpful. Your Photographic DR tells you nothing about the literal, physical capabilities of the hardware. Engineering DR, on the other hand, tells you where that read noise floor is, and how it differs from camera to camera. The 5D III has 33.1e- worth of read noise. The 5D II had 27.8e- RN, the 7D has 8.6e- RN. The D800 has 3e- RN. The difference between the 5D III and 5D II is significant...it's 5.3e-. That is more than the TOTAL read noise of the D800! :P I'd happily take 5.3e- RN in Canon's next DSLR. The only reason the 5D III is better than the 5D II in general, and particularly at high ISO, is they bumped Q.E. up from 33% to 49%...THAT is significant, however they castrated themselves at ISO 100 with the huge increase in read noise.

If Canon could release a camera with 5e- RN at ISO 100, and the same FWC as the 5D III, it would have 82.6dB of dynamic range. That comes out to over 13.7 stops of dynamic range. That would solve a LOT of their low ISO IQ problems. However, given Canon's trend...I fully expect RN at low ISO to INCREASE. The 7D had 8.6e-. The 70D has 13.5e- (and with smaller pixels to boot!) The 5D II had 27.8e-, the 5D III has 33.1e-. The 1D IV had 16.6e-, the 1D X has a whopping 38.2e- RN!!!!! (That is a two-fold increase in read noise over the 1D IV...if they had kept the 16.6e- RN with the 1D X, they could have had 12.5 stops of DR.) Canon's current trend demonstrates increases in read noise in each new camera model from the previous generation. I honestly don't know how or why they do that...but, it's the current trend. Maybe the 7D II will change that...but I expect it to end up with something like 15e- RN...  ???

My problem with Canon's sensors is a hardware one. I'm forced to make tradeoffs in my exposures, and sometimes I cannot counteract those tradeoffs with things like GND filters. I know how to expose. Of course I do. I know how to bracket and do HDR. IMO, HDR, sky replacement, tonemapping, manual blending, etc. shouldn't be necessary unless you have a truly extreme situation. I don't want to lift shadows to the point where they are midtones. I do, however, want the ability to tweak shadows in a minute or two, and not worry about revealing banding or blotchy color noise or having to increase contrast too much and block up shadows or worse, resort to much more time-costly solutions, so solve the shadow falloff and banding problem. Shadows should remain shadows...but they shouldn't look ugly.

Quote
So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.

I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.

It's entirely possible I like to shoot scenes with more dynamic range. It's also entirely possible my standards are higher than yours (that's not an insult, people have different standards). Regardless, the shadow noise on Canon cameras requires extra work to eliminate banding, color blotchiness, etc. I'm tired of having to spend extra time fixing things that aren't there on competitor's products. With astrophotography, my time to spend processing is greatly diminished as it is...I have no option but to spend time processing astro images, and the more skilled I get at it, the more advanced my imaging (soon here I'll be moving to a mono camera with color filters, in which case my workload will triple or quadruple, and if I go with both LRGB and NB imaging simultaneously, my workload could compound eight fold...the final results should be FAR superior to what I can do now with a DSLR, but it will require all my time.)

At this point, all I can say is I REALLY hope the 7D II has something Canon's been hiding, like Don says...otherwise I think my loss of confidence in Canon to do anything about their sensor IQ is going to be rather permanent. And, as I said before...that sucks. I don't want to have to buy two different brands, replicate lenses across brands, etc. It's far more cost effective to have a single brand, one set of lenses, and be able to reuse those lenses across bodies. That's why people pick a brand and stick with it in the first place.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 275