5DIII, 270mm (70-200 w/ 1.4TC), F/5.6, 1/2500, ISO-400
Truly beautiful. Love it.
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.
5DIII, 270mm (70-200 w/ 1.4TC), F/5.6, 1/2500, ISO-400
A local Double Crested Cormorant. Evil looking thing! Kind of an overcast day, which helped to keep the shine off the feathers & show more detail on this all black subject.
Color on the water is a reflection from peoples clothing on a bridge, out of sight in the background.
Jrista, as always a source of encouragement!
Something that I got, by going with the old chair base, is very free rotation. I just reach out and it spins with a finger. Having 5 props around the main stump allows quite a bit of versatility to the background. I did add the dead birch a few days back.
For anyone else, this prop was purely an experiment and I can tell you that midway through I felt discouraged because it was a couple of pretty intense days of construction without a clue whether the final result would be satisfactory - especially the 5 bedsprings held by 3 wire circles (surplus welding wire thrown out by your "typical government funded institution").
If your're tempted to do something vaguely similar go for it as I'll bet you'll be thrilled. I roll mine out of the way to clean the deck and roll it east or west to shoot depending on time of day etc. Happy as a lark!
If only the birds were as excited and would tell their friends!! But, I was visited by an angel.
I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it.
Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.
I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.
I have a D300s and a Nikon 200-400mm VRI, which is a nice lens by anyone but DXO's measurements. They tested the VRII model which is basically the same lens with improved VR and give it a score of 12!
Now, if you put it on a D7000, it jumps to 14. On a D3 its 17, and on a D700 its also 17. On a D4, it jumps to 21, on a D600, it jumps to 24, and on a D800, its 25!
This is why you don't compare lenses across different camera models, much less across different brands. Testing lenses on a camera body gives results that only apply to that body or one with the same sensor. In general, the test methods will give higher numbers with more MP. The lens itself did not change and is no better or worse just because its on a camera with more pixels.
The reason is simple, the MTF of a image is a product of the MTF of the lens, The Body, the monitor or printer its viewed on, and even your eyes. Raising the MTF of any of these things will improve the image as long as the others don't change. Of course, DXO does not USE MTF, just because the entire photography world uses it, they invented their own number, MPIX.
Now, if DXO wanted to compare lenses between Canon and Nikon, they'd test them all on the same Canon body. That would give you at lease some comparison, but it still would not be accurate, since manufacturers cameras recognize a lens model and may make subtle adjustments to exposure at the edges.
That's why most knowledgeable lens testers provide a warning note that says don't compare on different models or manufacturers, a lens test on a D300s is only good for a D300s, but may be similar for a body with the same sensor.
People bash DxO because during the time when DxO results have been shared around more and more widely talked about on the 'Net, they always favour Nikon/Sony.
As a result, all sorts of reasons have been created by the Canon fanbase as to why this is and how DxO is useless but rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, people would be lauding DxO.
In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?
I cannot help but question the measurement methodology of a group who (either fraudulently or ignorantly) uses biased and misleading summary statistics to put forth claims about camera/lens performance. That is to say, if you don't analyze your data properly but staunchly claim to be fair and objective, then it is my obligation to question your data collection methods as well, because your entire process is now suspect. That is what any good scientist does.
DxO has the phrase "Image Science" as part of their logo, but their practices aren't consistent with that phrase. I'm most concerned by the 'black box' calculation for their summary Sensor Score and Lens Score (methods should be published), and by the fact that they released data which was incorrect, defended it, then subsequently changed it with no acknowledgement of their error. Also, I'm noticing that the more I delve into their Measurements, the more I find errors (for example, I just looked at the Canon 28-300L measurements and their actuance data shown visually as field maps are ~10% lower relative to the same data plotted on a graph as a profile).
LOL. Sorry, but you entirely misunderstood the point of my blog article, which had to do with the myth of diffraction as it relates to pixel size, a myth that presumes once you stop a lens down to the diffraction limited resolution of the sensor, you suddenly experience worse IQ than a sensor with larger pixels (yes, many photographers actually DO believe that). That's a different issue, though.
Smaller pixels won't automatically make the result worse, except if their small size means relatively more space is dedicated to non light gathering circuitry. But the claims I saw in that blog go further: "That means softening caused by diffraction can fairly easily be corrected with some sharpening while post-processing.". It then goes on to show that F/22 and sharpening yields the same result as F/8 here, although even with this sample image the extra noise from F/22 and sharpening is quite obvious.
And the reason for this extra noise is simple to explain: the diffraction limited lens acts as a low pass filter, which unfortunately does not low pass filter sensor noise at the same time. Which means you lower the signal to noise ratio for higher image frequencies. Once you boost the higher frequencies, you also boost high frequency noise components, and that's what you see in that sample image.
As for sharpening, it mitigates the impact of diffraction, it does not eliminate the effects of diffraction entirely, or make lenses behave purely geometrically. Sharpening an f/22 image does not make it diffraction limited f/2 performance. There are also limits as to how far sharpening takes you the farther you stop down...sharpening an f/32 or f/45 or f/64 is certainly not going to reduce the impact of diffraction enough to produce geometric results. It does, however reduce the muddiness of diffraction blurring that affects the f/16+ image to an acceptable level. But that's all post-processing. Lenses behave as lenses behave. Anything you do in post does not actually change the behavior of the lens.The diameter of an Airy Disk is measured between its first minima, so yes, some extra pixel resolution below this diameter can be helpful, but after you put more than three pixels in each dimension you will barely gain extra information from higher pixel density. As you stated it: F/16 will be ok on full frame, but F/32 will bring visible loss of detail. The whole "myth of diffraction" boils down to "diffraction hurts, but later than many believe" and is therefore no myth at all, although Sigma evidently wants us believe so
Wow, I'm enjoying the fireworks here!
Anyway, back to the topic on hand. I have no doubt Canon will answer the D4s (which is actually a rather minor update based on the rumored specs). I am more curious if Canon has a high mp, high DR answer in a moderately sized body like the D800.
Why can't I help but think that if Canon made this announcement there would be much celebrating in CR?
There wouldn't be. Geometric MTF is kind of a cheat.
While I do agree with you on that point, I ran across some very odd blog entry where someone claimed that diffraction blur won't affect final image quality. This blog entry claims that sharpening can be done and would therefore fully justify geometric MTF graphs as highly relevant, but it seems to ignore the increase in noise or other image defects. But maybe this happens only with inferior third party glass, you never know ...
I owned a Sony A7 for awhile but sold it and now have a 5DmkIII on the way. I found the Sony a joy to use but for several reasons I chose the Canon instead. For the shooter who does video as much as he does photographs, the 5DmkIII is still the best game in town.
Here are a few reasons I dumped the Sony...
- Lacks third party support, ie apps, software, and hardware devices like intravelometers, shutter release controls, etc.
- Poor lens selection
- Lacks some pro level features, ie dual SD cards
The Sony as nice as it is, lacks some features I like. Maybe time will remedy some of the issues I had. [/list]
The 6D further improved on the 5D2, yet you don't give it any respect. You're biased, that's all.
Sure, it further improved the IQ a bit, which was already excellent on the 5DII. It improved the metering, too. It didn't significantly improve the AF or frame rate, which were the 5DII's biggest deficits. The 6D has a less robust shutter with a 1-stop lower max speed, slower Xsync, and a shorter rated lifespan. The 6D has a substantially longer shutter lag. So considering IQ only, the 6D improved on the 5DII, but overall it's a mixed bag. The 5DIII improved on the 5DII in pretty much every way. At least on Amazon (not that it means much) the 5DIII is outselling the 6D.
The 6D's biggest 'feature' is its lower cost.
Of course, AvTvM might say the 6D is not 'dated' because it has WiFi. Nice if you want to upload your JPGs to Facebook on the fly, I suppose. I thought it would be great for remote triggering, but someone pointed out that after a short time the connection drops, and you have to physically access the 6D to reactivate the link - that severely limits the utility, IMO (the WFT options for other bodies aren't limited in that way, but you pay a big premium for them).
* 5D III = 5D IIN
* 6D = 5D II v1.1
6D basically is a FF digital rebel to me. Marekting crippled product with a reasonable sensor and Wifi. About equally bad as Nikon D610, but better than D600, since it did not do splatter movies with its mirror. :-)