December 21, 2014, 06:38:27 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 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 322
1051
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 06:21:31 PM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

Please define "sell like hotcakes."

I'd love for someone who thinks this is a viable market to provide some evidence or, at a minimum, reasonably good arguments to support that contention.

In 2013 there was a Forbes interview with Leica's medium format guy. He said, "There are no industry-wide figures, but we think the core medium format market is roughly 6000 units per year – worldwide, for all brands." (Emphasis added by me)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcbabej/2013/05/08/how-leica-camera-is-reinventing-the-medium-format-market-on-its-own-terms/

That's not very many hotcakes.

Aye, this is similar to what I've heard. Which just emphasises the point...it's a very small pie that Canon and/or Nikon would be trying to take slices of. They would need some very competitive offerings to break into the niche.

1052
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:29:17 AM »
...
When it comes to REAL print...the original files don't matter a wit, really. They usually end up so heavily processed, either manually by the printer, or automatically by an ICC print profile and the ICM engine to shift color around so it fits within the gamut of the paper and inks, that the original capabilities of the cameras are so far removed as to be moot. And that's for high density, high resolution photographic ink jet printers. Commercial magazine publications rarely come close to the kind of color reproduction capabilities or ink droplet densities of high end ink jet printers (they simply operate in a different way, and usually use just your basic CMYK instead of the 10 or 12 different colors used in ink jets).

What application do you use for printing?

Photoshop. It has had soft proofing features for years, as it's an industry standard product for printing, with a very wide variety of printer types, including the big commercial printing systems for magazines that require proper calibration and dithering of each CMYK color channel independently.

I've used custom rasterizers in the past, and some of those actually integrate into Photoshop, and the use of a custom rasterizer really boils down to getting a better dithering for each color channel when doing ink jet prints. Photoshop with just the Canon and Epson drivers does a very good job these days, though, and since my upgrade to Windows 8.x not all the custom rasterizers have been working properly.

1053
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:24:18 AM »
If it's sub 10k, and has 3 LS primes to start, it'd sell like hot cakes.

IF it is sub 10k. Given the $7k price of the 1D X, which uses a sensor that has about half the area of a 44x33mm "small" sized medium format sensor, let alone something in the 60x40mm range, I find it highly doubtful that Canon would practically give away a MFD camera for $10k. Especially not with Canon's pricing trend lately. I also don't see the lenses being cheap by any means...it's a lot tougher to design the optics of a lens that must perform ideally from corner to corner in a much larger image circle. I agree with one of the previous comments...they would be more like Canon's Cine line of zoom lenses, which are tens of thousands of dollars each.

1054
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 10:22:20 PM »
I'd be willing to bet every print you've ever had professionally printed came off of an Epson, Canon, or possibly HP printer.

Then there's all the Fuji and Noritsu (and other) printers used by most low-end commercial printers these days, department store type stuff.
i haven't used them since Noritsu wet-labs went by the wayside.  Too bad, I liked the (laser-based?) wet prints i used to get from them once I had the lab dialed in and had them keep the equipment zero'd for my print jobs.

When they went to "dry-lab" operation it was just a commercial sized CMYK printer and the results looked horrible to me.  Low ppi meant things like fine detail and gradations in high key shots were just stochastic dots instead of continuous tone.  Went with a pro-level printing service after that but wasn't convenient for small prints under 12x18.  The big Prographs can do an awesome job when properly set up tho. 
My Epson R3000 outputs satisfactory prints with little effort at home, usually stands up well to loupe inspection.

Well, I don't generally consider department store prints to be of photographic quality. There are certainly a lot of printers and printer types out there, some laser, some dye sublimation, some are ink jet but use dyes instead of pigments.

When it comes to professional grade photographic prints, two types are proven to stand the test of time and produce quality again and again:

 1. Pigment Ink Jet/Giclee
 2. Photographic (as in paper exposed by light)

When it comes to gamut and contrast and overall "dynamic range", today, nothing beats an ink jet from Canon or Epson, when Lucia EX or UltraChrome HDR inks are used. Official tests have been done on countless papers, under strenuous conditions, and as much as there is a certain aesthetic quality to photographic prints, they still don't compare in terms of gamut nor hold up as well under the long term as ink jet prints. I think the commercial Epson Stylus printers that use UltraChrome HDR are currently the best, as they have the widest gamut (slightly larger than Lucia EX inks used in the newer Canon imagePrograf printers), and the pigments have some of the best longevity (they can last, when properly stored, up to 200 years on certain papers, although many Canon+Lucia EX prints can last just as long on select papers.)

1055
EOS Bodies / Re: The Ramp Up to August Announcements is Starting [CR2]
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:07:55 PM »
Lets say I take a 20MPx image with a 70D and downsample that to 2 pixels. What will the dynamic range of that downsampled image be? When you downsample, do you gain any additional shadow or highlight detail?

Now I decide to print that downsampled image on paper. What is the maximum dynamic range that the paper and ink can reproduce? I wonder if it is higher than what I shot with the 70D. When you print an image, do you gain additional shadow or highlight detail?

I wonder... after all these are really difficult concepts to grapple with... :P

You always lose dynamic range in print. The best papers in the world, printed on top of the line Epson or Canon commercial printers with high end pigment inks with low metamerism and excellent ink density get maybe 7 stops or so of dynamic range. You NEVER gain DR in print. You always lose DR in print, and usually lose out in overall full gamut as well, as the range of reproducible colors, even on the best of the best papers with the best inks under excellent light, don't achieve the same kind of white point brightness, black point depth, nor color saturation extent as a computer screen.

1056
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:02:45 PM »
So they do downsampling until the camera they want to be better is better...  :o don't know.... sounds strange, but is not subjective at all  ;)

No.

They are using the case where you are using both cameras to print out an image of the same size as their rationale.

They've been downsampling for as long as they've been doing sensor reviews.

The significance of that is that an 8MP image fills an A4 page at 300dpi.

So their "normalisation" is "downsize to fit on a piece of paper that people will print on at home."

That seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do to me.

So what does it mean? It means that the image taken with the D800e will look better when you print it out on your A4 printer at home than if you used the 1DX. Or for your magazine or...

If you have ever actually done any REAL printing, you would understand how ludicrous this statement is.

I don't print, I use professional printers that have top of the line equipment, not random inkjet printers.

You do realize that professional commercial print labs use the commercial grade Canon imageProGraf and Epson Stylus ink jet printers, right? The majority of "professional" prints that come from labs were printed on your "random" ink jet printers. There are a few places in the past that used to use Iris Giclee printers, however Giclee is just ink jet, and Iris printers were practically run out of town by Epson. There are a few photographic printers out there, one that use light to expose photographic paper and use a chemical processing and fixing procedure, but those are FAR less common than the "random" ink jet printers. ;)

I'd be willing to bet every print you've ever had professionally printed came off of an Epson, Canon, or possibly HP printer.

1057
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2014, 05:24:01 AM »
Dunlin, Holy Island, England's north east coast:

(Bigger here).

Dunlin, Holy Island:

(Bigger here. Almost too close to focus on, this is "full frame" at 600mm).

Wheatear, Holy Island:

(Bigger here).

Sanderling, Holy Island:

(Bigger here).

All with the 7D and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS and 2.x TC, handheld at 600mm - Exif is in all of them.

Beautiful shots, these! Well done!

1058
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2014, 05:23:27 AM »
LOL, guys...I've had the 5D III for about two months now.  :P  First time I shared photos taken with it was back on page 387 here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg403611#msg403611

LOL  ;D
So, does it replace your 7D or is that one still good for other purposes?

The 7D is still useful. No question the smaller 4.3µm pixels resolve more detail. You can tell with these finch photos that I've framed the birds smaller. I have my teleconverters, but I haven't used them with the 5D III and 600 yet (well, at least, not for bird photography...I've used them for astrophotography.) This summer has actually been pretty poor for birds...not much more than the staples, and it's been a LOT harder to find them, as the water table, wetlands and lakes in Colorado are very full, so it's actually pretty tough to get around to shores and wetlands and get close to birds like I did before. As such, most of the birds are hiding in hard to reach places, and I really haven't bothered to try and photograph them...too high a risk of damaging or drowning my equipment.

Ironically, Colorado is actually a pretty crappy place for bird photography...we don't have many native species of birds in the majority of the state, there are only a few widely dispersed pockets of birds in general, we don't have big, broad, wide open coastal shorelines where shorebirds and waders congregate out in the open for easy photography, and 90% of our species are only here during spring and fall migrations. We have the greatest variety of local birds in the mountains, but I rarely have time to get out there.

Hence all the astrophotography lately...I can just set up and do that in my backyard whenever the night sky is clear.

1059
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2014, 04:42:46 AM »
LOL, guys...I've had the 5D III for about two months now.  :P  First time I shared photos taken with it was back on page 387 here:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg403611#msg403611

1060
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 03:52:59 AM »
When it comes to REAL print...the original files don't matter a wit, really. They usually end up so heavily processed, either manually by the printer, or automatically by an ICC print profile and the ICM engine to shift color around so it fits within the gamut of the paper and inks, that the original capabilities of the cameras are so far removed as to be moot...

And then there's the lighting conditions the print will be viewed in; direct sunlight viewing may offer the widest DR possible on a print but our eyes seem to lose ability to differentiate detail in very dark tones under low levels of illumination. So, even if you print to retain some shadow detail, it's not readily visible in dim light.  If you want to maintain some dark tonal variations visible, you need to (compress) lift and accentuate (wasn't that a bra' commercial?) those dark tones even more.

I don't have as much experience as some, like you. I've only just started doing my own printing over the last year and a bit, and haven't done much of it.  I've been spoiled by a very detail-oriented professional printer who looked after my printing needs.  All I had to do was supply a good file and the magic was taken care of to create the print.

So, when we look at a digital file, with perhaps 2.5 stops above middle gray and another 8 or so stops below middle gray, aren't we effectively having to lift those darkest parts of the digital file by... 4 or more stops?

In that case, don't we want to start with a camera file that doesn't have any issues with excessive, visible (pattern) noise in darker areas that may show up more when lifted for printing?.. Especially if lifted & accentuated more for optimal viewing in dimmer lighting conditions?

Oh yes. Don't even get me started on printing for different lighting conditions. I use a high CRI 150W CFL bulb to preview my prints with, as it is a neutral sunlight white and very bright, but if the print is going to normally be viewed under say tungsten light, you have to factor that into the preparation and printing.

As for lifting, I guess it depends on how you do it. I tend to just change the black point, which really does tend to "compress" rather than "stretch". When you compress the histogram, you don't usually run into problems with read noise. Your basically just reducing the contrast of the image (on screen...in print it looks different), then shifting the tones around. If you do a normal lightroom-style shadow pull, that is stretching information, rather than compressing it, in which case Sony sensors certainly have an advantage. If all you ever do is print from Lightroom, rather than use Photoshop to prep your images for print, then a better sensor would be useful.

1061
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 02:43:38 AM »


Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

A digital back with Canon's menu format and functionality to use RT flashes?  In principle it could work, but it probably would have happened by now if it was going to do so.

Jim

If they just made a digital back, that might work. Then they wouldn't have to build a whole MF ecosystem. It's the building of an entire MF ecosystem that could compete that I think is a stretch.

1062
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 02:21:29 AM »
I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons

Isn't that almost exactly what they've been doing with the cinema line?  Entirely new bodies and entirely new lenses.  They won't do it before cinema is solidly profitable, but they certainly could if they decided to make it a 5-7 year project.  The sensor is the main obstacle here.

Canon started doing that fairly early on in the digital 2k and 4k cinema industry. There are competitors, but none of them were extremely well established like the MFD companies. If Canon or Nikon try to break into MF, they have to produce not only a sensor or a camera, but an entire photographic system while concurrently fighting against a LONG established set of companies and very strong customer loyalties. To really compete, they would need to make their system digital-back compatible with the existing brands...who knows what the hurdles there would be (assuming the existing MFD competitors don't hold all the rights and have the ability to block such a move from Canon.)

I honestly don't see that as the same thing as what they did with Cinema. They already had a lot of the technology they needed to move into Cinema...they had been doing both video DSLR and Camcorders for a long time before they started building their Cinema EOS line.

1063
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:32:40 AM »
Why does everyone think Nikon couldn't develop a MF system? They're still the number 2 player in the market, a downward trend from the top of the market is still really high up.

Is it a good idea? If they really think this thing through and make it a long term investment, yes. It's pretty much inevitable that everyone will end up with "larger than 35mm" sensors, there's just no-where else to go to keep raising the IQ bar.

I don't even believe Canon could develop an MF system. For exactly the same reasons...and Canon is WAY better at marketing their camera systems than Nikon is (not to mention their significantly larger R&D budget.) If Canon couldn't do it, there is no way Nikon could do it...they simply don't have the cashflow to ride out the long up-front journey trying to steal MF customers away from the established dominant players in that market. Especially now that their potential competitors are also using high DR Sony sensors, and pairing those sensors with interchangeable backs, better camera systems, and phenomenal glass.

1064
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:24:29 AM »
Finchfest

About a week back, I was driving through a new neighborhood built on what used to be a large open field behind my neighborhood. I used to go out there to photograph the moon, thunderstorms and sometimes sunsets, as it had a great view of the sky. I thought the entire field had been developed (original plans indicated that was going to be the case), however once I got into the new neighborhood, I learned it was a very small, single road with a cul-de-sac at the end. There were maybe a dozen homes in it. Just past the end of the cul-de-sac was the rest of the field...and it was PACKED with birds. They were all flying up and down between this large thicket of thistles and the outer eves of the roofs of the last two houses (the center two spot on the -sac was unused, with a large cinder block wall dropping strait down into the field).

Well, naturally, upon seeing so many birds, I headed home, grabbed my gear, and photographed the Finchfest. Almost all the birds out there were finches, three species namely: American Goldfinch, Lesser Goldfinch, and the ubiquitous House Finch. They put on quite a show, ripping and shredding the old dried and dead, and now thorny thistle blossoms to get at the Nyjer seed inside. These were probably the most cooporative group of birds I've encountered, as it usually takes a special bird setup and a lot of careful waiting in a hide to get perfectly posed photos like these.

Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
Gitzo GT3532LS + Jobu Pro II

(Have to say, ABSOLUTELY LOVE the creamy boke the larger frame of the 5D III allows! Exquisite!)







See more at my blog!

1065
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 03, 2014, 01:05:30 AM »
So they do downsampling until the camera they want to be better is better...  :o don't know.... sounds strange, but is not subjective at all  ;)

No.

They are using the case where you are using both cameras to print out an image of the same size as their rationale.

They've been downsampling for as long as they've been doing sensor reviews.

The significance of that is that an 8MP image fills an A4 page at 300dpi.

So their "normalisation" is "downsize to fit on a piece of paper that people will print on at home."

That seems like a perfectly sensible thing to do to me.

So what does it mean? It means that the image taken with the D800e will look better when you print it out on your A4 printer at home than if you used the 1DX. Or for your magazine or...

If you have ever actually done any REAL printing, you would understand how ludicrous this statement is.

I've been printing my own photos for about six years now. I've used several dozen different types of papers, including purely natural fiber papers as well as papers with OBAs, from matte to semi-gloss/luster/satin to gloss papers. I've used papers from Hahnemuhle, Ilford, Red River, Breathing Color, Canson, Moab, and a whole host of other brands. I've printed on Canon and Epson printers, with Lucia, Lucia EX, and a range of UltraChrome inks. So when I say the following...it comes from a fairly long-term experience.

Dynamic range in print has nothing to do with the dynamic range of the original file. Print DR ranges from less than 5 stops to maybe a bit more than 7 stops on the BEST papers with PHENOMENAL L* and DMax. Such papers are either carefully crafted natural fiber papers with a very neutral, very bright white point, or they are papers with OBAs that have exceptional white points (and are usually on the cooler side.)

Black depth has to do with DMax, which is dependent upon both the paper and inks used, as well as the density and consistency with which those inks are laid onto the paper. Getting really crisp, "high" dynamic range in print has to do with how you print, on what paper you print, and the quality of the inks you use. To get the best "dynamic range" in a print, and that's a term we rarely actually use (DMax, or minimum reflectivity, is really what us printers are concerned with...the density of the ink and the ability of an ink+paper to discern fine differences in tonal levels even at maximum density.) You need over 97% reflectivity at L* and DMax of at least or better than 2.3 to get really good "dynamic range" in a print.

Even when you find a paper that has a proper ICC profile for a high quality ink jet printer, you still have so little dynamic range that to make the most out of your images, you have to process them very carefully to compress even the ~11 stops of DR in a Canon file or, worse, the 13 stops of DR in a Nikon file, into nearly HALF that much space. Furthermore, when your compressing all the extensive dynamic range and color information in one of those amazing images from either Canon or Nikon files, you have to make sure the gamut of your working image fits within the gamut of the paper and printer/ink. If you do not take the time to manually shift the tones and colors in your images to fit within the gamut of your print, you will often end up with blocked blacks (very poor tonal range in the deep shadows on the printed page...subtle changes that may appear on screen with an original RAW will all simply end up a muddy dark blackish brownish smudge...even with the best of printers and the best of papers), or funky color shifts where out-of-gamut colors were shifted into the gamut of the paper and printer/ink via ICM.

When it comes to REAL print...the original files don't matter a wit, really. They usually end up so heavily processed, either manually by the printer, or automatically by an ICC print profile and the ICM engine to shift color around so it fits within the gamut of the paper and inks, that the original capabilities of the cameras are so far removed as to be moot. And that's for high density, high resolution photographic ink jet printers. Commercial magazine publications rarely come close to the kind of color reproduction capabilities or ink droplet densities of high end ink jet printers (they simply operate in a different way, and usually use just your basic CMYK instead of the 10 or 12 different colors used in ink jets).

Pages: 1 ... 69 70 [71] 72 73 ... 322