November 27, 2014, 08:23:50 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 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 311
1156
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:52:11 PM »
Thanks for the suggestions Jon.  Actually I was way over-exposed and cut back in raw.  A friend has been commenting that I'm usually overexposed and a little on the yellow side of the spectrum.  Unfortunately, I think that the monitor is playing a part in this.  I have two hooked up and they don't quite agree.

It's been lightly raining and is completely overcase and the sky is washed out in these shots.  Not sure exactly how to handle them.

Jack

Based on what I see there, if that is the original exposure, it isn't overexposed at all. Exposure in digital is not the same as with film. You want to shift the histogram as far to the right as possible, without clipping highlights. It is STANDARD course to pull the exposure back down in post. That's how you maximize your use of the camera's dynamic range, reduce noise to the minimum potential, etc.

I think your initial exposure there is good, actually quite ideal. Given that your already exposing well, the trick then would be learning how to stretch the exposure to improve contrast and enhance detail. You might be inclined to just reduce exposure by a stop and a half or so. Instead, reduce it by a stop, then pull down the shadows a little bit more, and push the highlights a bit. That will expand the tonal range to fill up the dynamic range of a 14-bit RAW file, improving contrast and bringing out detail.

1157
I've been asking the same question for years. It's funny that I was just about to start a thread bragging about the amazing HDR capabilities of the 5DIII…

I did a furniture shoot yesterday. I didn't take my 1DX. Instead I took my friend's 5DIII because it has in-camera HDR which WORKS… Unfortunately, this only works with a tripod. Since the camera takes 3 images and then combines them into one. Also, there is a little bit of cropping on the final image, so u always have to frame wider...

I also wish for the day my camera can see what my eyes see. Even the most expensive cameras can't capture a perfect sunset or a backlit portrait without a lot of tweaking…

Magic Lantern has a hack for the 5D and I think 7D that enhances the DR but it makes the image noisy.
My suggestion? Dual or triple Sensors. One for highlights and one for Shadows.

IF one sensor could be calibrated to "see" only the top range of light and the other the bottom, it could work…

I attached one image of yesterday's shoot. Taken with available light only… This photo would be IMPOSSIBLE with my 1DX. I am very impressed with it and it looks great. Check out the white curtain. U can see the trees outside and not a washed out 100% white curtain. and the detail of the orchids against the backlit. Also, no noise or distortion.
So, to the OP, get a 5DIII and a tripod and it will change the way u see things…

Technical info: 5DIII, Canon 24-70 F2.8L II,  ISO 320, 28mm, F8.0, 1/20

 :)

Happy Shooting.

Wow. I want that house! NICE!!!

1158
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:32:28 PM »
So, finally got around to picking up a Canon 5D III. Way past due, been meaning to do it forever, just...gotta scrounge up the funds, you know? First it was the 600mm lens, then it was a crapload of astrophotography equipment (kind of unexpected, but I realized I'd been putting off astrophotography for YEARS, way longer than the 5D III, so I decided to just dive in head first).

I'm pretty happy to have the 5D III now, though. Now with almost five hours strait using the 5D III on the kinds of things I generally shoot (I'd only used it by borrowing another guys out in the field, or in stores before), I have to say...compared to the 7D, the 5D III is EFFORTLESS. It just works. No fuss, no hassles, no fiddling with the AF system or anything like that.

For all that people croon (and scream) about the IQ benefits of full-frame sensors, the SINGLE biggest and most immediate benefit I saw with the 5D III was focusing. It is BLAZING fast, locks in instantly, seems to intuitively just know what thing you want focused, even when there are potential obstructions (right out of the box, it was focusing on deer through foreground tree branches and other obstructions without any effort on my part), and it nails it over 90% of the time. I've noticed a little bit of jitter a couple times, but no where even remotely as bad as what I experienced with the 7D. There is the full-frame IQ benefit for sure as well. I haven't noticed it quite so much in my subjects themselves, however background boke is AMAZING. It used to be so noisy with the 7D...and difficult to clean up without greater measures than just the Lightroom NR tool. The 5D III has so little noise in the background, and it cleans up super well.

I do feel the frame rate difference. It sounds a lot slower, and feels a bit slower. I am quite certain I'll miss the 8fps of the 7D. I can also tell that unless I fill the frame more, there is a slight loss of resolution. A number of the birds I shot just ended up so small in the frame (I forgot to take my TCs with me as I never really used them with the 7D, and at the moment I have no idea where they are), and while they don't look bad when cropped, they definitely don't have quite the same detail. I think that will be OK, though...once I find my TCs, I think 840mm f/5.6 will become the sweet spot, and if I need it, 1200mm f/8 will completely close the magnification/resolution gap.

Most of my shots so far are ever so slightly out of focus due to not having run the camera through FoCal yet (I need to move my license over to the 5D III), but I don't think you'll be able to tell at these sizes. Anyway, here are some of my first bird shots.



Snowy Egret

Smallish wading bird, brilliant white with a black bill, yellow facial patch and yellow eyes. Tall, with long black legs and yellow feet.

The sequence of photos here is out of about 1500 I took (the first 1500 with the 5D III). I chose this particular sequence to share first, as it shows the ISO capabilities pretty well, ranging from ISO 400 to as high as ISO 6400. ISO 6400 on the 5D III is easily as good as ISO 1600 on the 7D, and the way the noise cleans up, it's maybe even as good as ISO 800 or somewhere between 800 and 1600.

This particular Egret was a skilled and prolific fisher. It must have caught a dozen or so fish wile I was photographing it. Some of them were so large I was surprised it managed to squirrel them down it's gullet! :P

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

1/2000s @ f/4 ISO 400






1/160s @ f/7.1 ISO 640


1/500s @ f/9 ISO 800


1/125s @ f/8 ISO 1600


1/400s @ f/8 ISO 6400


^^--- OH HELL YEAH, BABY!! --^^

ISO 6400 kicks ass on this camera. SO much more color fidelity and way less noise. :D No way in hell could I have ever gotten that shot, that late after sunset, with the 7D (it was probably 15-20 minutes AFTER sunset, so quite dark in the grand scheme of things).

1159
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:07:38 PM »
As I was getting ready to head out of Lee Metcalf for the evening, some of the Magpie Jay fledglings were raising a ruckus.   



Very nice! Love that gaping birdmaw! :D "Gimme FOOOOD!"

1160
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 10, 2014, 03:07:02 PM »
Your starting to get some really great shots, Jack! Your exposures are getting better as well, although I still recommend you boost your exposures more in-camera a bit. Your definitely under-exposing more than over-exposing...a bit more light will really help you bring out more contrast in your final results. One other recommendation...pull back just a bit. It's good that you can get close, but you want to have some negative space around your birds...when they are real tight in the frame, the birds tend to feel a little crowded.

1161
A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras,

I trust you know Andy was paid to switch. Some thing all major camera brands do as part of their advertising strategy. I doubt he has bought any Canon gear at all (just assuming here as I do not know the specifics on how these deals work);
"I was recently appointed a ‘Canon Explorer’ ... I’m an ambassador for the brand..."

I believe he became a "Canon Explorer" after he switched. Also, I don't believe Canon actually pays the Explorers of Light photographers...at least, not directly. They may get equipment, but a LOT of high end photographers get free equipment from all the major brands, often simultaneously.

If you read Andy's blog, he seems like a pretty sincere guy. I don't think he switched because he was paid off, and if he was, you need to present solid proof of that. (I'm not one for hearsay and rumormongering about how pros can't have honest opinions.)

1162
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7d2 IQ thoughts.
« on: June 09, 2014, 04:10:49 PM »
Here is some interesting research on Quad Pixel tech from a couple of guys at Aptina. Read about it and let me know if you think it might open up the discussion a bit more. The future demands for HDR video and the computational techniques being discussed in this work by Gordon Wan, Xiangli Li, Gennadiy Agranov, Marc Levoy and Mark Horowitz.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/gordon-multibucket-jssc12.pdf

That isn't quad-pixel technology. There is still a single pixel "per pixel", a single photo-diode "per pixel". It is multi-"bucket" technology. Just reading the abstract (haven't had time to read the entire paper yet), this is a means of reading out each photodiode (one photodiode per pixel, so no relation to Canon DPAF) multiple times per exposure. The "buckets" allow independent storage of pixel charge each partial read cycle, which can then be later combined (binned) to produce a signal charge MUCH greater than that of the photodiode itself. In the case of a four-bucket design, the total charge of the pixel, and therefor it's SNR and dynamic range, can be up to around four times that of a classic single pixel.

This is effectively a means of achieving hardware HDR, performed within the sensor itself, at the time of exposure and readout. I don't know the specifics of how it actually works yet (have to read the paper), but it sounds intriguing.

I would NOT draw any parallels between this and Canon's DPAF technology though...the two are entirely different, and serve different purposes.

(Frankly, I find the multi-bucket pixel concept far more intriguing than DPAF...if we just apply the concept to the 1D X, assuming ~1.3e- intrinsic sensor noise per pixel and a 90ke- FWC, this would extend the 1D X's intrinsic (pre-read) dynamic range from 16.14 stops (20 * log(90376/1.3)) to 18.15 stops (20 * log((90375*4) / 1.3)). Factoring in read noise, 38e-, that reduces the 1D X DR to 13.3 stops, however that is still over two stops better than the 11.2 stops it gets currently. If Canon can reduce their read noise to the same range as Exmor, ~3e-, then the 1D X with a quad-bucket design would still have 16.93 stops of DR...that's more than is possible with a 16-bit ADC, and I highly doubt we'll see anything like an 18- or 20-bit ADC in a DSLR any time soon.)

1163
I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

I value the thought and clarity you put into your posts, and the valuable information they provide.

But having watched many threads get sidetracked, and devolve into the same pointless arguments, I can't help think that part of the problem is you keep responding to the same trollish behaviour and flamebait posts.

We all know who the trolls are - if everyone just starts ignoring them, they might eventually get the hint and just go away.

Phil.

I've ignored a LOT of these threads that devolve into the DR debate. If it isn't me, it's definitely someone else, or usually a bunch of someone elses. Just search through these forums for all of the topics that somehow, eventually, devolve into the DR debate. I maybe participate in about a third of them. There are plenty more that I simply just don't get involved in at all, or leave when the debate starts. Sometimes I'm in a mood to debate and debunk the same old tired myths, but a lot more of the time, I'd rather work on my own photography.

To lay the blame for the entire problem at my feet is rather uncouth, and certainly ignorant of how deep the problem goes and how many people are involved (certainly more than just "the trolls"...there are certainly plenty of them, but there are plenty of others besides myself who hate to let the trolls have the last word.)

1164
"Canon Rumors" to me clearly enough suggests that the forum discussion will (or should) focus on the equipment  available or expected to be available from  Canon, …simple as that. Are there not sufficient other sites which offer conflicting opinion ad nauseam on what constitutes "art"? ("opinion", because one man's art is another's "WTF?")

Still not getting what I'm saying. Reread this: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21195.msg402874#msg402874

I am not interested in more "What is art?" talk. I'm interested in "How to I use my equipment to realize my own personal artistic vision?" kinds of talk. That need not be devoid of technicalities...however, it would pleasantly be devoid of the incessant, never-ending, beat-the-dead-horse-forever "Nikon has better DR!!!! BLuihuhuhuhthfphbbt!!" crap. As you say, there are PLENTY of places around the net (around everywhere) to debate what constitutes art. There really aren't that many places where you can discuss HOW to be ARTISTIC, or HOW to REALIZE your ARTISTIC VISION. Those are very, very, very different topics than your run-of-the-mill "this is art, that's not" debate.

The other side of the coin, and I make this observation with absolutely no offense intended, is that I would not come here at all, if the posts were predominately peoples' thoughts on art, including your own.

Again, things need not be devoid of technical talk. I just wish people could talk about Canon equipment and not always have every technical topic devolve into the same old useless, pointless, meaningless debate about how Nikon and Sony cameras have more DR. Wouldn't it be nice to just chat about just Canon gear, for a change? Say, when they finally release their big MP camera...wouldn't it be nice to have a conversation about THAT camera, and what THAT camera can do, and how THAT camera can assist you in realizing your personal artistic visions better than THAT cameras PREDECESSOR or Canon alternatives? Without having to worry that someone is going to bring up the DR debate...A-GAIN (which you know will end the useful conversation in the thread, and force it to devolve into the same people saying the same things over and over...AGAIN.)

That's all I'm really getting at. It would be nice to have some cordial conversations about Canon equipment, and how Canon equipment can better your art, without having to worry that some Nikon troll is going to ruin it. :P It would just be awesome to start talking about some new Canon camera, and have the ENTIRE thread be JUST about that Canon camera, maybe eventually getting to the point where people start sharing actual photos they have taken with it, start sharing their experiences, etc. Our topics so rarely ever get to that point...they are never allowed to...because it always boils down to brand competition.

I dunno...I'm just getting tired of having to debate all the time. Would be great to just...chat (fearlessly).

1165
EOS Bodies / Re: New Implementation for DPAF Technology?
« on: June 09, 2014, 12:36:40 AM »
I've heard of a pellicle (pelican) mirror but haven't read up about it, so thanks for the feedback.

My thoughts were that if an image sensor was used then it could do RGB metering as well (instead of having a separate metering sensor on top of the pentaprism) thereby freeing up space for a Wifi or Radio module. However, as you say since the sensitivity/precision is not on par it with traditional PDAF there is no justification. No one would want to compromise AF performance unnecessarily.

I think it will be a good while before we see focal-plane AF systems comparing to dedicated AF systems. Right now, in the case of Canon's DPAF, they basically turned the whole sensor into one giant line sensor. That's about as advanced as Canon's first AF sensor back in the 80's, which was also a single strip line sensor. Were going to need to see DPAF evolve into QPAF, where the sensor can be read twice, once for a horizontal line sensor and once again for a vertical line sensor (now were up to the late 80's/early 90's); beyond that were going to have to see advancements that bring us multi-orientation phase detection at the focal plane (horizontal, vertical, and both diagonals in directions 90° perpendicular); were going to need to see significant improvements in the speed and accuracy of focal plane AF (at this point, I believe the low-light edge will disappear, and fall behind that of dedicated AF sensors, since right now the sensor can be exposed for longer to support very low light AF...but when speed becomes critical, image sensors are WORSE than the huge pixels of dedicated AF line sensors at sensing in the dark), etc.

Focal-plane AF is in it's infancy. It's trendy and cool right now, and it brings new capabilities to the table for a new class of digital camera. But that new class of digital camera is demonstrably at least a couple generations behind DSLRs in terms of critical functionality. It will mature, and at some point mirrorless cameras will ultimately become superior to DSLRs in every way, including AF, but that is a very long way of into the future (especially with the bulk of western economies, the US and Europe, effectively rejecting mirrorless at a mass scale at this stage.)

DPAF, as much as everyone here loves to talk about it (probably because it's really the only key sensor innovation from Canon in quite some time), is really a very simple, minor EVOLUTION of prior focal-plane AF technology. Canon took the next logical step, but overall the technology is in it's infancy. DPAF, if one were to rank sensor innovations from the last three years, ranks pretty low overall. It isn't the kind of magical technology everyone hopes it is...it's just a basic evolution of technology that already existed in a simpler form.

Canon really needs to be radical with their sensor innovation to really make anyone start thinking about them as an innovative leader in sensor technology again. They need to move to a fully on-die image processing pipeline (move ADC onto the sensor die), preferably go hyperparallel, also preferably move to either a dual-stage CDS (analog and digital) or at least a digital CDS, etc. All of this would really require a die shrink...which means Canon needs to move to a 180nm process. Even if Canon does that...it still isn't going to make DPAF a particularly intriguing or compelling technology in the world of CMOS image sensors. Even if Canon moves to QPAF (I haven't seen any such patents yet), that would still be a minor evolution of DPAF...it still wouldn't rank high among all of the radical innovations that are constantly occurring in the image sensors world.

1166
Man you just did it again, you can't fairly compare between cameras using Screen DR, you have to use Print DR. I'm start to doubt that you do get normalization after all, either that or are sneakily tricking people to make Canon look better in this scenario (also don't forget the banding differences where the 5D3 has tons more than D800 at low ISO).

I understand normalization perfectly. Normalization only works for certain things, though. It doesn't tell me everything, and quite specifically a normalized image that has 14.4 stops DOES NOT tell me the actual real-world editing latitude (i.e. the shadow lifting capability) of the D800. It EXAGGERATES it, unrealistically, by another two thirds of a stop at least. I am not trying to trick anyone. I believe DXO is tricking people when it comes to how they "sell" DR. They aren't technically incorrect, however they ARE practically incorrect.

Your still comparing equipment in an isolated, agnostic context. I'm comparing real-world image workability. There is a difference. PrintDR is only useful within the context of DXO's web site. It has ZERO meaning outside of it. It has ZERO meaning when it comes to actually editing your images. No one downsamples an image, THEN processes it. Everyone processes their images a RAW, in which case, you NEVER downsample, because you CANNOT downsample and still BE editing RAW.

The use of ScreenDR does not change the fact that the D800 has an advantage. Not at all. Screen DR still shows a significant advantage for the D800. This doesn't make the 5D III better, it just doesn't make the D800 even more better than it actually is. The difference is that Screen DR tells you the REAL WORLD editing latitude advantage. A real, tangible thing that, as a photographer, once you are no longer comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO, and actually USING it, you can actually REALIZE.

I could care less about comparing cameras within the limited context of DXO. I could care less about being "fair" within the context of DXO's results. I care about what happens when I have the camera in-hand. I care about what limitations are imposed upon me when I am actually working with a camera's RAW files. I care about the real-world, realizable benefits of the D800's greater DR. I don't deny that it has more DR. Two stops is a LOT more tonal range. A LOT. No one is downplaying that. I just don't like the actual realizable DR benefit of the D800 being inflated. I've seen people spouting numbers like 14.7 and even 14.9 stops of DR (the latter, I think, was for the A7s), when NONE of that is actually a realizable advantage. You don't edit the exposure of downsampled images. You lose WAY too much editing latitude when you convert from a bayer pixel array to RGB pixels. The only number that tells you the real-world editing latitude is Screen DR. It IS a comparable value, within the right context...the context of actually editing images (which is what we all do...we don't compare cameras once we'be bought them...we USE them, and we EDIT their images). If I bring up a D800 and 5D III image in Lightroom, and do the most significant shadow lift I can before noise dominates the shadows...the D800 will get an extra two maybe two and a quarter stops over the 5D III. IT WILL NOT get another three stops, it won't get 3.5 stops, it won't get 4 stops. It will get about two stops of additional shadow lifting, maybe a little more.

All I care about is being realistic about the ACTUAL capabilities of these cameras. I really don't care about endless, infinite camera comparisons in the unique, isolated, normalized world of DXO. Because when people bring it up here on these forums, they are actually taking photos with the D800, A7r, and 5D III, and sharing their edited results. Not one of the people sharing images will EVER realize the kind of additional editing latitude that Print DR is FALSELY leading them to believe they potentially could. That's what I care about. I'm not here to misslead anyone.

I also guarantee you...when someone spits out test results showing that the next Canon camera, with some 57 megapixels, get 15.3 stops of DR with a 14-bit ADC, I'll be THE FIRST one to tell them they are completely, categorically WRONG. (I actually really hope it happens, because I'd just love to prove to everyone that I could care less about brand here.  :P)

1167
What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? ... what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

I want more pixels. I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot. At least 30 would be very useful. 36 would be great. If I could get 100 I would take it.

I also want better low light focussing performance. In low light shooting relatively fast moving subjects I have to take 3 shoots to be sure to get one right - both with the 5DII and the 5DIII (this was the deal breaker for me).

Finally, much better high iso. 5DIII is of course a little better than 5DII but not the jump in performance I would like to see.

That's pretty much it - quite a modest list when it comes to number of items. Time will tell if Canon will deliver.

"I want more pixels" Either get a camera with more pixels or stitch.
"I take lots of street shots and often have to crop a lot." Er, learn to use the right focal length.
"I also want better low light focussing performance." Well no manufacturer is that much better or worse than any other on that, which hardly means Canon need to "fight back".
"Finally, much better high iso." Again, Canon are very competitive in this area, they either lead the competition or are very close, so again, they hardly need to "fight back".

Those are not features where Canon is trailing, unless you compare them solely to the number of pixels on the 36mp Sony sensor in all its iterations. All you are really saying is you'd like Canon to "fight back" with more pixels because you can't choose the right focal length and everything else they do is comparable to competing product capabilities, hardly a compelling reason for Canon to invest hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line. I'd hoped your input would be far more worthwhile than you can't choose the right focal length and need mp to sort out your short comings.

If you want a 100mp sensor for cropping purposes just use a P&S, it is effectively the same thing and will give you the same IQ.

Totally agree here. Canon is highly competitive, and even the leader in some cases, in all of these area.

@Maiaibing: There are technical specs, and there are real-world results. Technically, the difference between Canon and Nikon at high ISO is marginal, with Canon having a slight lead. In the real world, well, just go look at some actual photos. Canon absolutely EXCELS at high ISO. It does much better than technical measurements, like those from DXO or DPR, would otherwise indicate. But high ISO performance is often the LEAST of the things people who buy the 1D X concern themselves with. AF system performance, accuracy, precision, and the camera's frame rate are often more important, or at least equally important.

A once die-hard Nikon fan, Andy Rouse, tried out the 1D X not long after it's release. Andy is a world renown, well respected wildlife photographer, and he really is phenomenally good. The guy loved the 1D X over the D4 SO MUCH that he whole heartedly ditched his Nikon gear, bought a PAIR of 1D X cameras, a bunch of high end Canon lenses, and did his entire next couple of safaris with nothing but Canon gear. Right out the gate, with no other experience other than a couple of days he'd had when he tested the camera on some owls and otters...he was willing to completely move his entire kit from one brand to another.

To me, that is the kind of real-world performance that speaks VOLUMES more than any test DXO, DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. may do. For most people these days, we already have more than enough resolution. We already have more than enough dynamic range. Noise levels are quite low across the board, even on the noisiest sensors (note that most medium format cameras that people have been using for the last five or six years have the same amount and kind of noise as Canon sensors do...high end, $40,000 medium format digital cameras even have BANDING in the shadows! But it doesn't matter...people still buy them, still use them, because the need to lift shadows by six stops is so small in the grand scheme of things, as to be irrelevant.)

1168
EOS Bodies / Re: New Full Frame Camera in Testing? [CR1]
« on: June 08, 2014, 04:11:17 PM »
It depends to some extent on semantics, and you have far more stamina than I for that.

My old teacher and Wikipedia both referred to Saturation as "the colourfulness of a colour relative to its own brightness". Possibly not the most technical description, but it gets the idea over to non technical folk.

The difficulty with such a statement, as eloquent as it may be, is that it leaves "color" itself relatively undefined. Color may be a highly overloaded term, but in technical terms, color is the product of three dimensions...when you take out saturation, you still have hue and intensity/brightness.

I may be playing semantics here, but I think it's important when discussing color accuracy, calibration, etc. to discuss color properly, in all three of it's dimensions. Therefor, I think a more accurate rephrasing might be: "Saturation is the richness of a hue relative to it's intensity." ;) Then I'd totally agree.

The rest, we agree on, basically.

If you are going to represent something in a space smaller than it occupies in real life you have to do something, I am saying get the saturation levels relative to each other as close as possible (to fit in the smaller space), get the brightness as close as possible (to fit in the reproduction medium), but there is no excuse for not getting the hue correct. If you do that, even though it isn't "true to nature", it is an accurate rendition and will appear so to the eye.

I agree. There is no excuse to not get hue correct. That's a radial factor, and it should be possible in any gamut to choose a proper hue. I still think that saturation matters to a degree. If you have a very tiny gamut, where a deep red is simply not an option, then it doesn't really matter how accurately you choose your hue...your "deep red rose" will still end up some form of pink. In terms of the difference between say sRGB and AdobeRGB, I do agree, a red rose will appear acceptably red as far as your perception goes, that you could have relatively accurately reproduced the color of your image.

I also think that this very same circumstance is the very reason people such as ourselves are constantly seeking larger gamuts...not just for screen, but really more so for print. Greens are easy to reproduce in print...it's the reds, blues, violets, magentas, and in some cases even the oranges that are so difficult to accurately reproduce in print.

1169
one little minor thing you overlook.... you are currently posting in the EOS BODIES TECH RUMORS FORUM. Why the heck do you expect or want talk about photographic art in this sub-forum?

I mean on these forums in general. It would just simply be nice to get past the whole Nikon/DR thing at some point. I'm not saying we stop talking tech...but there is more to owning a Canon camera than debating DR.

Nobody is stopping you ignoring the threads you are not interested in debating.

People such as yourself could also stop beating the horse that was dead so long ago and is now only a pile of rotting horse mush. :P

Meaning? Which dead horse do I beat?

Farcical really when you are the verbose one flagellating the deceased equine.

Sorry, thought that last response was from LTRL. My point is moot, given you are a different person. :P

As for the deceased equine, I only respond to those who bring the topic up again, in order to correct invalid facts, I don't start the debates myself.

1170

Exactly why does Canon need to "fight back" on full frame cameras? The 5DIII and the 6D are both absolutely crushing their Nikon equivalents in sales.


Do you buy your camera equipment according to their sales figures?

My purchases are directed by my needs as a photographer. I did not buy the 5DIII after extensive testing - because it just did not bring anything useful to me. So for my money Canon will have to "fight back" or my next DSLR will not be a Canon unless I have a 5DII break down. Simple as that.

YMMV.

What would you consider a "fighting back" feature? As far as I can see the only thing the 5D MkIII doesn't do significantly better than the 5D MkII is low iso shadows, even then it is better, just not significantly better. And seeing as how the "best" competitors are only performing a stop or so better in this one metric I'd like to know what you, personally, would like from Canon. Also, what are you shooting that negates every other improvement in the MkIII over the MkII.

The best competitors are more like 3 stops not 1 stop better than the 5D3 for low ISO shadows. The 5D3 is basically the same as the 5D2, it actually measures a trace worse for standard DR and has similar banding one direction (far less banding in the other direction though, but so long as you have any in either direction....). At high ISO is where the 5D3 does better than the 5D2 in the shadows.

According to DXO ScreenDR (the ACTUAL dynamic range you get out of a REAL RAW FILE...we don't edit downsampled RAW images, because then it wouldn't be RAW, and we would lose a hell of a lot more editing latitude anyway...so YES, I AM comparing Screen DR, and I believe it is the ONLY valid DR comparison for what most photographers care about: RAW exposure editing latitude):

5D Mark III: 10.97 stops
D800E: 13.24 stops
D800: 13.23 stops

The D800/E are the best still cameras as far as dynamic range goes. That makes the difference 2.27 stops at best, or 2 1/4 stops.

If we did use Print DR, then it's 11.7 vs. 14.4, which is 2.7 stops, or about 2 2/3rd stops. (Mind, Print DR is NOT ACTUALLY MEASURED. It is extrapolated, but not measured...so a 2.7 stops difference is assumed, not guaranteed.) You don't get a full three stop advantage in either case, however as far as editing RAW images goes, Print DR is irrelevant. We CAN NOT EDIT RAW IMAGES THAT ARE DOWNSAMPLED, BECAUSE RAW CANNOT BE DOWNSAMPLED. We edit RAW files as RAW files...as 100% original, unmodified, full size bayer pixel array data. The sole reason we HAVE the kind of editing latitude we have is because we edit RAW. Therefor, Print DR is irrelevant when it comes to discussing our ability to lift shadows (which IS what EVERYONE thinks about when they think "dynamic range"). Shadow lifting ability is different than total image noise levels throughout the entire tonal grade...but no one really cares about total image noise levels. Above 18% gray, noise, even though it is still present to the same degree, is much harder to see...our eyes pick up small differences at lower intensities better than they pick up small differences at high intensities.

Everyone cares about shadow lifting or highlight recovery...editing latitude. At best, the difference in terms of editing latitude is 2 1/4 stops, based on actual DXO DR measurements taken directly from real RAW files.

Pages: 1 ... 76 77 [78] 79 80 ... 311