September 20, 2014, 04:07:56 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 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 305
1321
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 20, 2014, 12:55:20 PM »
I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:

Why on God's green Earth would I compare RAW files with no NR when I never work that way and neither does anyone else?

If your photography consists of staring at zero NR, ISO 3200 black and gray patches at 100% until your eyes cross, buy a Nikon or a Sony. Then you can boost those RAW files +5 stops and really have some fun staring at patches.

Well, because the way YOU do things doesn't really matter for everyone else. :P However, for the sake of discussion, I most frequently do not apply NR to my images. I do everything in my power to maximize my signal strength up front, so that noise is minimal. I also usually publish most of my work with fairly considerable downsampling (my 5184px images are usually uploaded at 1140px on my blog), and the downsampling does enough basic averaging to reduce noise to an acceptable level in a standardized way (so if I downsampled and compared a 1D IV image with a 70D image after downsampling, the results would be the same.)

Noise reduction, in the case of RAW images, is not a feature of the camera. It is a feature of post-processing software. If we are to have an objective discussion about CAMERAS and their SENSORS, the ONLY way to compare the noise levels of two cameras is directly, with a RAW image. If you apply noise reduction, then export as a JPEG...well, we are no longer comparing RAW now are we? Were comparing denoised jpegs (and the algorithms that perform noise reduction.

Additionally, NR is a subjective process, and how well it works is affected by a number of factors. The noisier 70D images will require more noise reduction. The farther you push an NR routine, the more blurring it will introduce. The more blurring introduced, the lower the resolution of the 70D images, which puts it at a further disadvantage to the 1D IV. Comparing swatches that have been run through a noise reduction process means your no longer comparing the most objective data.

Sorry to burst your bubble here D by disproving your theory that the 70D has the same low noise as the 1D IV, but there it is in gray, black, and blue. I'm sorry that I have to share this kind of information, but to be frank, I honestly do not believe it is fair to anyone else to simply let anecdotal claims that have no basis in fact stand without providing as much objective and honest data as I can so everyone can see for themselves and make their own determinations.

The 70D is measurably and visibly noisier than the 1D IV. The data backs that conclusion.

1322
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 20, 2014, 12:45:19 PM »
Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens?  In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Light from a point light source is emitted in a spherical wavefront. That wavefront, in an ideal vacuum, will emanate progressively outwards, in perpetuity, without changing. The entire time the wavefront is propagating, it is also diffracting. Even though there is nothing to diffract from...the diffraction is intrinsic. At every point along the wavefront, at every moment, light diffracts...separates and spreads...in a predictable fashion and in such a manner as to reinforce the basic nature of light...inverse squared falloff. (If you think about it for a bit, for inverse square falloff to actually work, even in an ideal vacuum SOMETHING would have to be happening to the light in the wavefront to make it disperse...in the absence of everything else, the dispersion would have to be intrinsic...diffraction.)

If you throw up an obstruction in the path of that light, the obstruction DOES block the light behind it. Any light not blocked by it continues on, however now there is a void in the wavefront. Without that void, the parts of the wavefront that make it around the obstruction don't actually "bend" to create the ring-light halos around the obstruction. They are diffracting, which is causing the light to spread out in a certain way. Same deal with an opening, only in this case all light except what passes through the opening is blocked, and the light that passed through it is still diffracting, still causing it to spread out.

So, since diffraction is an intrinsic property of light, will the use of a polarizer "straiten" light out? A polarizer is a filter that is designed to allow light with a certain radial orientation through. The filter could be thought of as basically a series of extremely thin, tall slits. The light with the same orientation as the slits will get through, all other light will be blocked. Each slit could be thought of as an aperture. Since diffraction is intrinsic...all the light that passes through the polarizing filter will still be diffracting. Even if your using a circular polarizer, the light that exits the quarter wave plate is also still diffracting. Diffraction cannot be stopped, because it is a fundamental trait of the behavior of light in a wavefront.

1323
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: April 19, 2014, 08:05:20 PM »
Took some images of the eclipse we had a few days ago with my 600. They turned out pretty great, if I may say so myself. ;)

Orion Atlas GEM
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
BackyardEOS (For image sequence acquisition)

ISO 100 @ f/8, shutter speeds from 1/250th to 15s.
Amazing photos. Congratulations!
And a little cheating I might say. The Atlas GEM helped in low shutter speeds - this is not the cheating I am talking about  :) -  and the eclipse was visible from US - this is the cheating I was talking about  ;D ;D ;D.
(Many  :( :(  or even  >:( >:( for me!)

:P

There are three more total eclipses coming. This was the first of the current tetrad, so there is one in October, and another in spring and late fall next year. The latter two are supposed to be more visible from other parts of the globe. I'll only get to see them at sunrise or sunset (which might in and of itself make for an interesting wide angle progression.)

1324
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 19, 2014, 12:54:16 PM »
I wouldn't call the difference in noise between the 1D IV and 70D a "wash". Compare the noise test results from DPR:



That's a very noticeable difference. There isn't enough of a difference in image size to completely normalize the results with downsampling (remember, it isn't simply the image dimensions you have to factor in, it is also the difference in sensor area. So simply downsampling the 70D image to 1D IV image dimensions is insufficient to reduce noise to the same levels.)

Personally, based on the gray and black swatches, the 1D IV seems to have quite a bit less noise at ISO 3200 than the 70D. Unless the 7D II hits the streets with a massive improvement in Q.E., I wouldn't expect there to be much of a difference. If Canon really manages to improve their Q.E. to modern standard (i.e. 55-60%), there could be a slight improvement, one that is recognizable over the 70D, but still insufficient to overcome the greater total area benefit of the 1D IV.

1325
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM
« on: April 19, 2014, 04:19:58 AM »
Took some images of the eclipse we had a few days ago with my 600. They turned out pretty great, if I may say so myself. ;)

Orion Atlas GEM
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF 600mm f/4 L II
BackyardEOS (For image sequence acquisition)

ISO 100 @ f/8, shutter speeds from 1/250th to 15s.

1326
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 10:04:43 PM »
@Don: It looks like those are the paper release dates. The 1D X was announced in 2011, but it didn't actually hit the shelves until early summer 2012 (and maybe even later than that, as a lot of the early models used in the Olympics were ultimately replaced). The 1D X has a technical market life that is even shorter than the 5D III, which means the 7D is that much older than the next oldest Canon camera model.

Either it is REALLY going to be something utterly incredible...or Canon is killing off the 7D line. At this point, I'm beginning to wonder if Canon can really achieve the level of "incredible" the 7D would really need to be to fill the shoes everyone expects it to...

1327
To clarify, "Best at FL+aperture" refers to the Lens Score, which is based primarily on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (like a dimly lit warehouse).  The Lens Score is only secondarily influenced by the optical metrics (sharpness, CA, etc.), despite those metrics being listed under the Score. That's why almost all lenses are 'best' wide open, even though the optical metrics are rarely highest at max aperture.

Consider that the Sigma 50/1.4 A is not 'best at 50mm f/1.4', but at f/2.  Since giving up a full stop of light is obviously not better for 'performance in 150 lux' that suggests that one or more of the secondary factors measured for the Sigma 50/1.4 A at f/1.4 were sufficiently bad to counteract the loss of a stop of light.  Or it could be that DxO just screwed up their testing, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

LOL, no, not the first time.

I'm curious why the Sigma 50 A would bet the "best at f/2" treatment...but not the Canon 50L. It's quite clear that the 50L does not perform ideally (at least according to DXO's metrics) at f/1.2...and yet you can't even select f/1.4, f/1.8, or f/2 when comparing apertures with other lenses.

It's little things like that that always make me wonder if DXO really does have a bias against Canon. It seems they very often put Canon equipment in the worst possible light, and take special care to put other brand's products in the best possible light (such as the Sugma 50/1.4 A being best at f/2.)

1328
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 05:05:39 PM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism.  50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT! :D

Yeah, it has nothing to do with the SA adjustment, it was just a dated design in general.  It would be nice to see an updated version, although I'd first rather see an Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS update with curved blades/IS.  The other thing was, I though the 50L gave a better balance of dreaminess and sharpness than I could find with the 135 softfocus (even at variable midpoints settings etc).

If you are a fan of the dreamy look of softfocus, the 50mm f/1.2L is a great combination of sharpness and dreamy effect.  It makes more of a tradeoff in sharpness than the 85L II does, but if you like that effect you might actually like the 50L better than the 85L.

I'm a big fan of both the 50L and 85L. I am not good at portraiture myself, but I really love the quality and aesthetic of the portraits I have seen taken with those lenses. Both of them are excellent. The 50 definitely has a softer, dreamier look, but the perspective with the 85L is just to die for.

1329
*Sigh*

DXOs Lens test results are so useless. They rate it less than the Otus, as they should, however all of the measures they choose to exhibit would otherwise indicate that the new Sigma 50 should be the better lens. Comparatively, it has the same resolution, better transmission, less distortion, and less CA than the Otus. Only in a footnote do you actually learn why DXO rates the Otus higher: It has sharper corners.

Bleh. DXO. Bleh. It's like they just barf up test results and let the chunks & giblets remain where they plop.

I think the world would be well-served if DXO just gave up on lens tests alltogether, nuked their lens tests database, and just stuck with sensor tests. (And furthermore, I think the world would be better served if DXO did away with scalar test "scores"...just as useless as the chunks and giblets that is their lens tests.)

Um... I'm pretty sure DxO scores are based on a specific "best" setting, where the "best" setting represents the highest achievable score on a given lens.  The sigma score is based on f/2, and the Otus f/1.4.  They both acheive similar sharpness at that setting, however that gives the Otus a full stop advatage on toward the score.  You should maybe figure out how they score before trying to put down their scoring method......

If you look at all of DXO's lens tests, it's very clear that they are VERY HEAVILY weighted based on the T-stops value. That's a problem, because it makes comparing the overall quality of lenses with different maximum apertures practically impossible...it's why a 50mm f/1.4 lens scores higher than Canon's 600mm f/4 L II supertele. The 50/1.4 doesn't even come remotely close to comparing to the 600/4 II, but it scores quite a bit higher. Why? Because it's f/1.4, and the 600 is f/4.

The T-stops weighting effectively nullifies much of the value that could potentially exist in DXO's lens tests. There is a certain value to testing lenses that way...but not if the most important benchmark is T-stops.

BTW, DXO does not mix ratings for measures from different apertures. If they choose the measures for a lens when it is tested at f/1.2, then that means sharpness, distortion, vignetting, and CA are all based on the testing at that aperture. As far as I know, DXO tests all lenses at all of the full-stop apertures (plus the max aperture, in case it isn't a full stop faster), but when they score, it's based on whatever they deem is the "best" aperture. Since they put such a significant weight on T-stops, that is usually the maximum aperture, although not always.

1330
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 02:29:09 PM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.
Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting.  If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX.  So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature.  If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D.  I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action).  For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less.  I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.
Agreed!
I did not realize how bad the AF was on the 60D until I got into birding and tried a borrowed 5D3..... now I can't imagine getting another camera without a great AF system. My ideal camera would be the sampling density of APS-C and 5D3 (or better) AF system... this is why I am so keenly waiting for the 7D2 and why I did not even consider the 70D...

Aye, this is pretty much the same boat I am in. The sensor IQ on the 5D III is better as well, but once you start using that AF system, nothing else will really suffice. Ever since I first tried a 5D III a couple years ago now, I've seen all the flaws in the 7D's AF system. The 7D was better than the 9pt systems in it's time, but it definitely has it's issues. The 61pt system seems to be flawless...it's so well designed and perfectly executed. I don't know that I'll be getting a 7D II...I'm pretty set on a 5D III now (for action, landscapes, and astrophotography), but I still really hope the 7D II gets a vastly improved AF system.

So in AI servo mode, does the 5D focus much faster and more accurate than the 7D?

In my experience, the 5D III is way faster, far more consistent, and a bit more accurate. The 7D can be accurate, it's just inconsistent. I've had rather poor luck photographing birds in flight, for example. I don't think the problem is my technique...the 7D just has trouble maintaining a lock. It'll lock initially, but then for each frame the AF moves around just enough to kill your keeper rate. The 5D III seems to maintain it's lock much better (especially in expansion or zone modes), so even though it has a lower frame rate, it's keeper rate is similar or higher than the 7D.

The 7D II really needs to get an AF system like the 61pt that Canon put in the 5D III and 1D X. If they reuse the 19pt AF system again, I think that will be a very big mistake.

1331
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:44:42 PM »
Immature Rufous Hummingbird from Monday.

EXIF on the site.

That is a truly exquisite shot! Perfectly composed, beautiful boke, supreme sharpness. Fantastic work!!

1332
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:42:27 PM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.
Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting.  If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX.  So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature.  If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D.  I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action).  For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less.  I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.
Agreed!
I did not realize how bad the AF was on the 60D until I got into birding and tried a borrowed 5D3..... now I can't imagine getting another camera without a great AF system. My ideal camera would be the sampling density of APS-C and 5D3 (or better) AF system... this is why I am so keenly waiting for the 7D2 and why I did not even consider the 70D...

Aye, this is pretty much the same boat I am in. The sensor IQ on the 5D III is better as well, but once you start using that AF system, nothing else will really suffice. Ever since I first tried a 5D III a couple years ago now, I've seen all the flaws in the 7D's AF system. The 7D was better than the 9pt systems in it's time, but it definitely has it's issues. The 61pt system seems to be flawless...it's so well designed and perfectly executed. I don't know that I'll be getting a 7D II...I'm pretty set on a 5D III now (for action, landscapes, and astrophotography), but I still really hope the 7D II gets a vastly improved AF system.

1333
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:39:48 PM »
Do let me know when this thread gets back to a discussion between 1D IV vs 7D II.
Alas, it seems to have run off into another FF vs APS-C discussion...

Everything I've said about FF vs. APS-C applies to APS-H vs. APS-C. It's sensor area that matters, so from a sensor IQ standpoint, the 1D IV wins. The 1D line also gets extra attention to all the fine little details, the small things that require a lot of extra hands on time to tweak and tune and refine. It's a large part of the reason the 1D models cost more...they are highly and optimally tuned. You can ask almost any 1D owner regardless of generation, and most will tell you they love the out of camera quality in every respect...higher sharpness, lower noise, better color fidelity, etc. etc. The same fine tuning applies to all the other non-sensor aspects of the camera as well. The 1D IV had a much better AF system that performed much better than the 1D III and any other Canon camera of the time. It had the high frame rate, the higher performance shutter, etc.

I think it would be very difficult for the 7D II to beat the 1D IV. At best, Canon might achieve parity, and some non-sensor features might be better (i.e. better AF system), but I generally don't think IQ will be better.
And the quality of the build!
Better materials, tighter tolerances, hand matching to specs, all adds up to greater consistency. Another reason why the 1D lineups outperform the rest, particularly after a few drops and tumbles.....

Absolutely! I've used one 1D IV once. It was pretty phenomenal. Even with it's older AF system, it was just amazing how well it performed, how fast it was, how it sounded, how it felt. The 1D X is the same way, just even more refined. If someone offered me either one for a steal, I'd take either one. Doesn't matter to me if the 1D IV is old, it's still a superior camera.

1334
EOS Bodies / Re: 1d IV vs. 7D II
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:36:27 PM »
I used to think the 7DII might come pretty close to FF in IQ and high ISO performance. Until last November, when a thread in CR completely disillusioned me. Next thing, I bought a 5DIII and sold my 7D and I've been kicking myself ever since that I didn't do it a year sooner. So yeah, I totally see what Jrista is talking about [although not cool to use 'trounce' in APS-C vs FF (that too same generation), Jrista, not cool].
I am lucky that I didn't end up waiting for 7DII and be disappointed.
Agreed!

If IQ was my only concern, I could walk into the local bestbuy and grab a 6D for less than what we expect a 7D2 will go for. There is no way short of physics defying magic that the 7D2 will beat it... But for me, I really want a more capable AF system and after playing with the touchscreen interface on a 70D, would like to see the next generation of that too... Hmmmm...... 5D4?

And this is where it gets interesting.  If the AF system gets improved that hopefully means more keepers as was the case with the 5DIII and 1DX.  So technically the IQ of the camera could be improved with a better more accurate AF system...as we know, Sensor IQ is nothing if the image is fuzzy to start with.

One needs to look at the system and not just one feature.  If the 7DII gets an AF system on par with 5DIII or 1DX then that systems is more desirable than a 6D.  I would expect a higher keeper rate (At least for subjects that are in action).  For me, having tasted the sweetness of the advanced AF systems, I could never go back to the old school 19point or less.  I would be disappointed, even if the sensor was noiseless.

Thats just me and buying a camera based on sensor alone is an amateur mistake.

Totally agree! Although I think whether the 7D II or 6D is desirable will often depend on what the photographer photographs. If your a macro junkie, I think the 6D would be the superior camera, as you'll very likely be using manual focus and focus stacking anyway. If your an action shooter and cannot afford the 1D X, then the 7D II should be pretty ideal.

1335
Lenses / Re: Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon
« on: April 18, 2014, 12:22:26 PM »
@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx

I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism.  50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.

I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT! :D

Pages: 1 ... 87 88 [89] 90 91 ... 305