April 19, 2014, 08:57:23 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 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 217
1036
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:27:06 PM »
Certain indications point to 40-45 MP with dual ISO. Upgrades to their Cinema line point to higher upgrades in hardware and firmware in new models. Dual sensors two sizes in one, two processors combining to cover 8K resolution and 3D  with dual pixels, auto phase and contrast detect with dual ISO. Will be kind of hard to beat. Betting though everything in focus is their goal with a function to blur what you want around subject, and more creative filters. So everything is in focus, you could zoooooom way, way out and its perfect in focus like the Canon Wonder Cam. Next line of labeling  Canon DC a1/ DUAL CAM advance 1. two sensors possible two different sizes. Sony is useing dual sensors and is Apple in their next phones. Dual lenses would be a heck of a killer a 12mm and a 100mm

Assuming this post isn't some kind of joke...

Dual ISO won't happen. That is a ML discovery of a happy quirk in the design of Canon's readout system. There is no telling that Canon will use the same system in future bodies, and in fact, I personally hope they don't...the downstream amplifier and the use of a downstream, off-die ADC is a significant part of the reason why their low ISO read noise is so bad. Canon really needs to develop a modern sensor, with on-die ADC, and preferably digital readout...at which point, Dual ISO wouldn't even be an option, since there would be no need for the downstream amplifier.

I'd figure the chances of Canon actually employing MLs Dual ISO discovery are so vanishingly small, they barely qualify as a mathematic point.

I also don't see Canon employing any kind of light field technology any time soon. For one, Canon always develops their own technology, while light field technology is currently owned by someone else. Lytro's cameras have a LONG ways to go before light field even really becomes a generally viable technology as well, and I don't see them selling the technology any time soon.

1037
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:33:26 PM »



All lovely, but this one is just spot on.

Would be interested to know what Gear was used.


Ditto. These photos are simply wonderful. The lighting, especially that blue highlight, is quite unique.

1038
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:32:52 PM »
This past summer, while I was photographing birds at one of our local wetland preserves, a fairly large group of female deer, ranging in age from yearlings to several years old and maybe a couple elders, wandered up for a drink.

All good, but the second Image is just about perfect, lovely background, almost a painterly touch to the Image, really, well done.

Thank you, very much. :)

I learned a lot with that photo. One of my favorites. It is slated to take up one of the largest spaces on my wall one of these days (when I can afford to print it.)

I have to say, I learned a lot with that shot. Had to get some very close foreground grass at just the right position in the frame to create a continuous blur. It's an effect I hope to replicate, if I can ever find the time to get back out there... (Hopefully soon...the rut is on!)

1039
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:23:54 PM »
That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.

And you know this because...?

Quote
As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

And you know this because...?

I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800? Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.

I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.



And you know this because...?

So, how do I know? Well, common sense, really. An eye for the obvious.

1040
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:16:27 PM »
Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U?  ("U" is for unicorn)

Doh! Now you've done it! "Unicorn." It'll be a mythological creature forever. :P

1041
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:56:44 PM »
Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus?  A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket.  However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range.

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

+100!

1042
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:53:56 PM »
Hi Jrista.
That must have been a fabulous experience, shame about being too so close they were inside your minimum zoom range, oh well sometimes it may not be just about he pictures. Great as they are!
My guess for these two pictures is, "Was that a twig or just that bloke with the Canon?" ;D 8)
Regal animals, thanks.

Cheers Graham.

Thanks! :) It was pretty exciting. The young yearlings are always curious. Both the males and the females, when they are only a year old or less, don't fully know to fear humans. So, they will look at you with the most curious of faces, and sneek in closer and closer, until they are maybe 15-20 feet from you. Then they get a little scared, start stomping the ground, and will usually take off, prancing about for a while, before they feel safe enough to come back in for another close look at that odd camo-covered creature making clicking noises (i.e. "Was that a twig or just that bloke with the Canon?").  ;D 8)

As for the lens, no zoom range. It was the EF 600mm f/4 L II prime, with a 1.4x TC attached. To maximize IQ, I've pretty much done away with zooms...too many compromises. The TC costs a little bit in IQ, but with a lens like the 600/4, it is still worlds better than the 100-400mm zoom, for example. I thought about removing the TC, but sometimes deer just move through really fast, and in the time it takes to change out or remove a TC, they can be gone. So, I just took the shots as they occurred.

1043
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:49:18 PM »







Stunning shots. Absolutely love that first one.

1044
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:48:37 PM »
This little guy was posing for me in Montana this summer.


Western Chipmunk by Heavens-Reach, on Flickr


Cute! And razor sharp! What lens/camera?

1045
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:48:16 PM »
This past summer, while I was photographing birds at one of our local wetland preserves, a fairly large group of female deer, ranging in age from yearlings to several years old and maybe a couple elders, wandered up for a drink.

They were all around me, and often too close for the 840mm focal length I was using at the time, so I apologize for the tight crops...some of these have had some rotation done to level them, but are otherwise as framed in camera:




Beautiful light in your pictures.

Aye! The light that time of year was just amazing...it was like photonic cream...soft, light yellow, smoothed over everything. Loved it.

1046
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:47:34 PM »
This past summer, while I was photographing birds at one of our local wetland preserves, a fairly large group of female deer, ranging in age from yearlings to several years old and maybe a couple elders, wandered up for a


Beautiful pictures !

(You must have aquired your 5DIII and 300/2.8 to grab those, yes ?   ;).   )

Thanks! And actually, 7D + 600/4 + 1.4x. I was actually photographing birds, and the deer just showed up. I actually wish I hadn't had the TC, as framing was really tight. I was afraid that if I spend the time to remove the TC, though, that I'd miss the deer.

The 5D III is still at the top of my list, and the 300/2.8 is right after that. The 600/4 L II just took everything out of me this year. I am also trying to start two businesses...one to sell my photography, and eventually maybe sell personal photography classes to teach people how to photograph wildlife, birds, and do astrophotography. The other is my main business for developing web sites and maybe doing backend software development. Those have consumed all my time and are consuming all my money...so I don't know when I'll be able to get the 5D III.  :-\

1047
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:44:28 PM »
I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo.

NSS! We all knew that already.

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

Hmm, interesting. If photographers only care about the images their gear produces...then, that must mean that Canon produces IQ that is more than sufficient for the majority of photographers...who, as statistics would have it, use Canon gear...right?

Today's situation is simple and clear:
  • Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera.  This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)
  • D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)
  • D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash. 
  • And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

And, how well...exactly...have the D800 and A7r, or D600 or D300 or D7100 sold, in comparison to the 5D III, 1D X, 1D IV, 5D II, 7D, etc. from Canon? Again, given the facts, Canon cameras sell significantly better. Canon cameras maintain the top slots in best seller lists around the world. Canon cameras are ubiquitous and endemic at sports and the Olympics, by orders of magnitude above any other brand. Canon cameras dominate wedding photography. Canon cameras are the most seen camera brand on back country trails where landscape photographers dominate. Canon sells, Canon is extremely successful, and some of the best photos in the world are made with Canon equipment, printed on Canon printers.

So...how well has this improved DR improved SoNikon's market position? Seems to me it hasn't really done much of anything. Nikon is still in decline (something, to be quite frank, I do NOT want to see...a competitive marketplace is essential for the consumer, and if Nikon continues to fail, it will disappear....go the way of Kodak, or be absorbed by a larger entity like Sony...either way, fewer competitors is BAD...and I don't want that to happen.) Sony, while their sensors power half the known market of digital photography devices, has yet to demonstrate it can make a good camera.

I believe Sony and Nikon are making the fatal mistake individuals like yourself seem to demand they make: Cater to every customer whim, rather than be a successful business. Sony's electronics division hasn't been a successful business for over a decade...it's hemorrhaged money for over a decade. Nikon has compelling products, but they can't seem to turn them into products that sell well enough for their business to succeed. It may be that Nikon invests too much money on R&D, and not enough money on manufacture, on their supply chain, on optimizing the efficiency of their manufacturing pipeline, etc. Whatever it is, neither company is successful, at the moment, as a business. Businesses make money, in the form of revenues, that then fuel further PRODUCTION, and if you have revenues left over, R&D. Canon excels at business. Their manufacturing pipeline is ideal. Their supply chain is usually stuffed. They, too, have compelling products, and they too continue to research new products and technology....they just do the whole business thing from top to bottom better.

I honestly have no worries that Canon will fail. On the contrary, I worry what will happen to Canon if their competition dries up because their competition listens to the whims of their bitchy customers too much, and fails at the business side of things. What would we have if Canon became a default monopoly? They are good at business...which is their strength....which means innovation would slow to a crawl as their business continued to thrive. IMO, Nikon and Sony need to get their S___ together, and beef up their businesses, instead of spending tens of billions of dollars inventing new technology that may or may not be compelling enough to sell while their businesses bleed out.

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device. :-)

Yeah, Canon's sensors lag behind. But their cameras are second to none. Image quality is not 100% dependent upon the sensor. If we take a very naive approach to determining what percentage each body factor affect IQ, we could simply divide it all up evenly: Sensor, AF System, Meter, Frame Rate. Four things, so each thing, in a naive distribution, has a 25% effect on IQ. Problem is, the sensor simply records whatever is projected on it. DR doesn't matter for squat if your image is focused incorrectly, metered wrong such that highlights are clipped, or doesn't include the best moment of action. As such, the sensor, in my opinion, should really have one of the lowest IQ factor ratings. I would say the meter is probably similar, again it is just a sensor and a little bit of logic to determine exposure. That makes AF and Frame Rate the two most important factors in IQ. Again, if you don't focus your subject, then frame rate doesn't matter...you'll get a string of missfocused frames that, even if they have gobs of DR and are perfectly metered, still go strait into the trash. That makes AF the most important factor in IQ. So, if we divvy it up more appropriately, we might get something like 50% AF, 25% Frame Rate, 13% Meter, and 12% Sensor.

It's no wonder Canon hasn't put so much effort into their sensors lately. They already have a damn good sensor. Their AF systems consistently performed BELOW the bar before...particularly the 5D II and 1D III cameras. Their metering systems were lagging, either being simply monochrome, or basic two-color rather than full RGB. Their Frame Rates were always good, but now they are even better. Canon, in the last round of body releases, improved their worst-performing components that primarily affect IQ. The 1D X received a new high resolution, full RGB metering sensor combined with a dedicated DIGIC4 chip. The 1D X and 5D III both received a new record-breaking 61pt/41pt c/t reticular AF system with multiple double cross-type AF points and highly configurable zone selection. The new 61pt AF system has the widest frame spread of any FF AF system. The new 1D X meter and it's AF system are wired together, allowing the high resolution meter to identify subjects, which is then fed into the AF system to improve tracking. These were the low hanging fruit, and the most requested improvements (alongside better high ISO performance) from Canon's customers.

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Should it? Really? I'm sure the 1Ds X (or whatever name Canon ends up releasing the Big MP camera under) will have a higher resolution sensor, as that camera is explicitly designed for studio work, where resolution is critically important (however not more important than the AF system.) As for the 5D IV, if that is indeed what Canon is working on, why MUST it have a "significantly" higher resolution? Does that really fit with that bodies primary customers usage scenarios? The 5D III is a wedding camera, first and foremost. Like the 5D II and 5D before it, wedding photographers live and die by the 5D line (every wedding photographer I've ever met or known has used something from the 5D line, with the exception of one, who used a D3 and occasionally a D800). When it comes to which camera is most used and most loved by wedding photographers, the 5D III wins hands down. The D800, while used by some wedding photographers, is frequently talked about as being too much, being too slow with its huge RAW files, those RAW files being too hefty to process quickly, etc. The D800 is NOT an ideal wedding photographers camera. The 5D III, however, is...and its most loved feature? The sensor? Nope. The AF system!

Personally, I expect the 5D IV to get a modest boost in sensor resolution, along with the elimination of read noise (reduced from the 30e- or more that current Canon cameras have to the 3e- or less that is necessary for DR to improve to 14 stops) and a boost to low ISO DR. Too much more resolution and they take the 5D line out of its ideal positioning as the worlds best general-purpose FF DSLR, where as more DR is better for everyone. I don't suspect we'll see the shift to 16bit color with the next 5D...instead, if Canon does make that shift, I suspect it will be in the 1Ds X...so I wouldn't hope for more than 14 stops of DR in the next 5D either.

1048
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:06:20 PM »
Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

And you do know that quite a number of photographers happily did away with color entirely, and explicitly chose a large grained, highly grainy film ON PURPOSE, for aesthetic reasons, right? You also know, then, that many digital photographers these days spend a lot of money trying to find, or a lot of time trying to perfect, one way or another of replicating film grain in their digital photos.

So sorry, but it is NOT all about the finest grain or the purest color reproduction. From an artistic standpoint, offset color and grain both have a long-standing place as a tool to improve aesthetic appeal.

That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days. As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

1049
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: November 30, 2013, 09:39:45 PM »
This past summer, while I was photographing birds at one of our local wetland preserves, a fairly large group of female deer, ranging in age from yearlings to several years old and maybe a couple elders, wandered up for a drink.

They were all around me, and often too close for the 840mm focal length I was using at the time, so I apologize for the tight crops...some of these have had some rotation done to level them, but are otherwise as framed in camera:








See more at these two blogs:

http://jonrista.com/2013/11/30/deer-at-cottonwood-creek/
http://jonrista.com/2013/07/23/beautiful-does/

1050
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: November 30, 2013, 09:30:55 PM »
That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...

The 36MP Nikon D800 already offers 2 points of DR above what the 5D3 does with comparable noise.
The D800's pixels are 4.9um, the 5D3's are 6.25um.
So not "better" but "the same" for smaller.

This is the opposite of what I'm talking about. At low ISO, dynamic range is limited by read noise. Canon has gobs of read noise at low ISO thanks to their ADC.

Yes and it is easily visible in dark tones.

And again, that isn't what we are discussing. Low ISO factors are well known, and have been beaten to death. Read noise, not photon shot noise, dominates at low ISO. Some newer sensors have very low read noise at low ISO, hence their improved DR. That has nothing to do with how a sensor performs at high ISO, however...which is dominated by photon shot noise.

Quantity of light converted into charge in a given time interval is what matters at high ISO. You can increase that quantity/time ratio by doing one of two things: increase pixel area (or, downsample in post)...or increase Q.E. (which is the ratio of photons converted into charge in a photodiode).  Since Q.E. in modern sensors is already between 50-60%, and stops refer to changes by powers of two, at best, assuming manufacturers find a way to achieve 100% Q.E. at room temperature, we could see one true stop of better high ISO noise performance. For sensors that already achieve over 50% Q.E., we can't even hope to see one true stop better.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70] 71 72 ... 217