September 20, 2014, 04:22:17 AM

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 [2] 3 4 ... 304
16
Underwater / Re: Australias Leafy Sea Dragon
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:57:53 PM »
Fantastic shot! Such vibrantly beautiful creaturs.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:57:22 PM »
Here is my take on Canon and their video DSLR.

If Canon want to do the smart thing they will bet some money on Cinema EOS line. Where I am from the C300 has been hugely popular among production companies and broadcasters.

The main reason I think is that it bridged gap between the DSLR and the large sensor camcorders. If you have worked with a ENG camera, you know how a camera should feel and work, if you want to an effective tool.
We want to use all our Canon glass with a large sensor, but the DSLR hassle can get tiredsome. The answer have been C300 for the most part.

If think Canon have a good chance to cement their position in this market if they make an effort with the Cinema EOS line.

On the other hand, if the 5d Mark IV is a complete game changer, it might turn out different, but I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. .

The thing is, the market for video DSLRs and the market for the Cinema EOS cameras are not the same market. They never were. A dude may stretch his wallet to get a 5D to shoot some short films, but there was no way that guy was ever going to pony up $15 grand for a C300.

Literally all Canon had to do to own the micro budget marketplace was to take all of the existing components of a 5D and put them into a more video-centric ergonomic body, and throw in the Magic Lantern video features as software. That's it. That's what people have been begging Canon for these last four or five years. They didn't have to create new sensors or even 4k recording, any of that. But they never built it. Instead they came out with cameras that had most of those features but priced $10k above people's reach, so only actual production companies could afford it.

Now, even if Canon did come out with a Cinema 5D tomorrow, it would be too late. The tech has moved way beyond it, way beyond what even the Cinema EOS line is capable of, and for far less money. There isn't a single thing that the 5D or 7DII can do with video that isn't done better by somebody else, for the same price or less.

That's the bottom line.

This. +1

Ditto! +1

18
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:56:08 PM »
I'm saying it's near the beginning of one.

My real point is I think Canon is missing the paradigm shift that is currently happening, and will continue to happen over the next few years.

Time will tell.  But consider some of the sensor technology that Canon has patented, in terms of huge sensors (largest CMOS sensor ever), high pixel density sensors (120 MP APS-H), low light imaging (0.01 lux fireflies), etc.  If you're right and there is a paradigm shift underway, it's very likely that Canon is ready, and will jump when it makes financial sense.  Given the documented recent sales data and the predictions of the near-term market share from Thom Hogan, it looks like it doesn't make fiscal sense yet.

Maybe. Maybe it's something else, such as sitting on lucrative patents without leveraging them (and who knows why, there are many reasons why that might be happening.) You are right about one thing...time will tell.

One thing is for sure...I'll be very ready to spend my money on whichever brand when they break the 14-bit ADC barrier and open up more bit space for 15-16 stops of DR. No more die-hard brand loyalty for me. Canon will truly surprise me if they are the first to do it (and, do it in such a way that actually makes it valuable...aside from smoother tonal shifts, Canon is barely able to utilize 12 bits, let alone 14, right now. If they drop a 16-bit ADC in the 5D IV, but still only get 11-12 stops out of it...that would just be depressing.) I'm hoping Sony drops an A7something with a 16-bit ADC that actually results in usable DR above 14 stops (I think the ADC is already becoming a bottleneck, with the D810 topping 13.8 stops of Screen DR.) I'd then at least be able to utilize my existing investment in lenses with such wonderful dynamic range.

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:51:13 PM »
Cameraman-interviewers don't use AF NOW because there isn't a good system available. Canon's DPAF can change that, and many one man bands are already touting the 70D, and C100, for this very reason. So, what was true yesterday, won't be true tomorrow, and some of it isn't even true today.

Careful now...it sounds like you're dangerously close to suggesting there's something innovative about Canon's newest CMOS sensors.  You might get some flak for that wild idea...   :o

LOL .... lots of flak ... manual focus is like the 11th commandment to video people. The DPAF technology is brilliant, and possibly revolutionary to video as they perfect it, and I am looking forward to seeing it full-sensor on upcoming Cx00 cameras.

I think the day when automatic AF systems can be programmed ahead of time to focus either on certain subjects at certain times, or to certain points within the depth of field at certain times (or maybe just at the push of a button), then the 11th commandment will happily be broken by a lot of video people. I think the main reason why manual still reigns supreme is that for many use cases, you pre-determine where your going to be focusing during a shoot, and pull focus from point a to point b to point c smoothly and at the right times and right rate during a clip.

I think the big deal with DPAF is you could track focus in a subject moving front to back in the depth of field, which from what I've seen, is probably the more difficult job for a focus puller (or the camera operator, if they are pulling their own focus). I think if QPAF comes along at some point, that will be when the accuracy and consistency of such focus improves to the point where it could really be relied upon for critical video work.

Reviewers claim that the DPAF in the 70D  doesn't hunt at all, and tracks fairly well. Combine that with touch screen to spot focus and it is extremely powerful, eliminating the human error. They need to provide really smooth pull, and variable focus speeds from slow to near-instant. Programmable timing isn't necessary because the camera operator can trigger that for planned shoots anyway. I think this is all coming sooner than later. Even magic lantern has programmable focus pull points, albeit a bit kludgey.

Tracking is another good use of the DPAF, but for me the biggest is just the fact that I can focus my attention on interviewing while the camera compensates for the subjects movements. I could even get three camera angles in focus while interviewing as a one-man-band, or a single cameraman can setup and monitor two cameras, especially with wifi control (sit at one camera, and operate the second remotely, including focus).

The more power, the better.

Oh, I agree, the more power, the better.

I know that DPAF locks onto subject well, but from what I'd seen, although people are impressed with the tracking, it isn't as good as what you get with a person actually pulling focus. There are often little blips where focus is just slightly out then it corrects, which IMO, isn't quite good enough for critical work. I'm sure it will improve...I'm curious to see if the 7D II's sensitivity improvements help that or not. I think moving from DPAF (which is basically just having horizontal detection) to something like QPAF, or another innovation that achieves the same thing (allowing horizontal and vertical detection) will improve tracking. Long term, someone will get to full double cross type technology, where phase detection can be performed in the horizontal, vertical, and both diagonal directions.

There are other companies doing research in this area now as well. Canon is no longer the only one with patents on such technology, so it may crop up in competitors products in the future. ;) That can only be good for consumers willing to look to other brands for their technology, and having "DPAF"-like focusing in all video equipment can only be a good thing (especially given the specs of Sony's recent cineama release, the FS7? That thing sounds like a powerhouse! The only thing it's really lacking from a competitive standpoint is DPAF.)

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:43:23 PM »
Sure. The report I was looking at was for the fiscal year 2013, although the report came out later in 2014. So the massive gains were not for the 2014 fiscal year (last fiscal year, which only ended recently), they were from two "years" ago (fiscal years). My mistake. I didn't realize that Nikon's fiscal years were so offset. Crucify me. I've already been hanging on a cross for a while now, not like it's going to matter. :P

21
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:40:24 PM »
Just going by the difference in DR by decibels, the difference is 16.8dB (assuming the maximum DR is 13.8...as I don't really like DXO's PrintDR. If we go by Print DR, the difference is more like 19.2dB). It's 82.8dB vs. 66dB. At 16.8dB, the difference is more than an order of magnitude, since every 10dB change IS an order of magnitude, and closer to two orders of magnitude. At 19.2dB, the difference is two orders of magnitude. THAT is very truly significant.

So...are you saying that the difference is a paradigm shift?

I'm saying it's near the beginning of one. It won't stop here. There are some amazing technologies out there that will push the 14 stops we have now well beyond 16 stops. Multi-bucket pixels, dual-ISO techniques (yes, there are actually patents out there for doing that directly in hardware from companies like Omnivision), deep photodiodes or muli-layer photodiodes for greater FWC in smaller pixel sizes, massive increases in Q.E. thanks to new materials, etc. I have an astro camera with a CMOS sensor from Aptina that has 120dB of dynamic range using an approach similar to ML's dual ISO. That's 20 stops.

Read noise are progressively dropping. The read noise and dark current levels in my astro camera are exceptionally low...WAY lower than anything in a Canon camera, although Exmors are getting close. Lower read noise at high ISO is also leading to higher dynamic range at very high ISO. I mean, the A7s has nearly 9 stops at ISO 51200, and it does it without resorting to double-exposure techniques, which is incredible. Anyone who says that is a minor difference is totally kidding themselves. That's revolutionary. It's not necessarily "paradigm-shifting" in and of itself, but it's still incredible.

I'm not saying that Sony's current Exmors constitute a paradigm shift in and of itself. However, the sensor technology out there is so advanced relative to Canon's that I honestly don't think it will be long before we could see 120dB in a single-shot from an ILC camera. Canon's technology, at a fundamental level, has remained the same for over a decade. It's still manufactured on 200mm wafers with a 500nm process, which is severely limiting them, when the majority of the rest of the industry moved to 300mm wafers years ago.

My real point is I think Canon is missing the paradigm shift that is currently happening, and will continue to happen over the next few years. Film didn't suddenly shift into digital overnight. Digital hit the scenes, got pretty darn good, and there were naysayers and holdouts for YEARS before the actual shift finally occurred. By the time it did, digital was overwhelmingly better than film. I'm saying were already in the beginning years of a new paradigm shift, one that, a few years from now, will allow us to produce photos that we couldn't today.

Imagine taking a good quality photo of aurora at motion-stopping speeds, so you could actually see the finer filamentary detail? Not even the high end cameras on the ISS can do that yet, but the A7s has taken a big step towards it. They are at 400k ISO, and an article by Ctein a couple years ago calculated that we would need ISO 1600k (1.6m, two more stops) to actually do that. I think in a few years time, we actually WILL be able to do that...and with decent dynamic range and relatively good IQ (all things considered). I honestly don't, however, believe it will be a Canon camera that does it first (and if a Canon camera does eventually gain the ability to, such an amazing feat would have lost it's novelty.)

Improvements in sensor technology open doors, remove limitations, create opportunities. I do indeed think things are changing, and that some day, not terribly long into the future, we'll look at the kind of IQ that used to be quite normal a couple years ago like we look at 35mm film photos today. I think we will see some phenomenal new things that we previously couldn't photograph before, not with the kind of detail and quality we could when 16 stops or more of DR and ISO's in the millions with good color fidelity is normal.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:08:07 PM »
Cameraman-interviewers don't use AF NOW because there isn't a good system available. Canon's DPAF can change that, and many one man bands are already touting the 70D, and C100, for this very reason. So, what was true yesterday, won't be true tomorrow, and some of it isn't even true today.

Careful now...it sounds like you're dangerously close to suggesting there's something innovative about Canon's newest CMOS sensors.  You might get some flak for that wild idea...   :o

LOL .... lots of flak ... manual focus is like the 11th commandment to video people. The DPAF technology is brilliant, and possibly revolutionary to video as they perfect it, and I am looking forward to seeing it full-sensor on upcoming Cx00 cameras.

I think the day when automatic AF systems can be programmed ahead of time to focus either on certain subjects at certain times, or to certain points within the depth of field at certain times (or maybe just at the push of a button), then the 11th commandment will happily be broken by a lot of video people. I think the main reason why manual still reigns supreme is that for many use cases, you pre-determine where your going to be focusing during a shoot, and pull focus from point a to point b to point c smoothly and at the right times and right rate during a clip.

I think the big deal with DPAF is you could track focus in a subject moving front to back in the depth of field, which from what I've seen, is probably the more difficult job for a focus puller (or the camera operator, if they are pulling their own focus). I think if QPAF comes along at some point, that will be when the accuracy and consistency of such focus improves to the point where it could really be relied upon for critical video work.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 19, 2014, 09:01:40 PM »
Thanks for the link, Woody. Interesting info. At least we aren't looking at a major decline in the ILC market. Once I started looking at sales numbers for the last fiscal year, I started to wonder about whether we were looking at the ILC market contracting like the P&S market did (which has been devastating, and with 20-40mp sensors in phones, and with hose sensors getting bigger, it looks like the P&S market is ultimately not just shrinking, but totally dead in the long run.)

24
EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark II Video Tested By Gizmodo
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:55:50 PM »
What exactly are we supposed to see here?  Or want to see?  They all seem pretty identical, the only clue telling otherwise is the slight changes in perspective when switching out cameras.  Is there something missing that a "videographer's camera" would have?

There is a lot more noise in the 7D II and 70D clips than the 5D III clips. The 7D II demonstrates less noise than the 70D until you get up into the much higher ISOs, probably thanks to DIGIC 6.

The easiest way to see the difference is look at the background behind the bottles...on the crop cameras, you can see artifacts and noise jumping around. On the FF camera, it's much cleaner, even at higher ISO.

25
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:52:01 PM »
I find this resistance to improved technology incredibly strange...to the point where I simply don't believe it.
But that's actually fairly normal behaviour, culture changes in generational steps. In many areas of society you literally have to wait for the "old guard" to die off before new ideas can be taken seriously.[/b]

Can I ask...in the context of this discussion, how does going from ~12 to ~14 stops of DR, or going from 22 to 36 MP, represent 'new ideas' requiring the 'old guard' to die off before they're adopted?  If you're talking about the switch from film to digital, or from vinyl to CDs, that's fine...but those are paradigm shifts in technology.  To suggest that the differences between current Canon and SoNikon sensors are a paradigm shift is ludicrous.  Rather, those differences are minor, incremental improvements.  Real improvements, yes...but minor.

You and I both know the difference is actually 3 stops: 11EV vs 14EV. Add FPN to the Canon and the practical DR is even less.

Why are you down-playing the difference? It actually approaches an order of magnitude, if not more.

Technically speaking, since stops are base two, it's really more than one order of magnitude. :P But, I get what your saying.

Just going by the difference in DR by decibels, the difference is 16.8dB (assuming the maximum DR is 13.8...as I don't really like DXO's PrintDR. If we go by Print DR, the difference is more like 19.2dB). It's 82.8dB vs. 66dB. At 16.8dB, the difference is more than an order of magnitude, since every 10dB change IS an order of magnitude, and closer to two orders of magnitude. At 19.2dB, the difference is two orders of magnitude. THAT is very truly significant.

It's also a concept no one seems to understand. And I'm tired of trying to explain it... :P

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:42:55 PM »
And an optical finder. And a tested, reliable AF system.

I'd certainly prefer an optical viewfinder. As for the AF system...well, Canon's 65pt system isn't any more tested than Samsung's 200pt system. We need time to tell the story on BOTH. Canon is probably the bet, but, I wouldn't count Samsung out yet. But, I would prefer an optical viewfinder, for sure. At least with the EVF, the registration distance is short enough that you can adapt Canon lenses.

Without lenses and a decent finder (never seen an EVF that even compares), bells and whistles are just... bells and whistles. The 7D II is an actual, useable dSLR, which most dSLR buyers want. If all you want is specs, why are you going with the manufacturer that cares least about them? It's like getting upset when Apple doesn't put the fastest chip in their new rMBP and makes it thinner instead or something.... Canon is about the experience and creating useful tools, not necessarily the highest-specced ones.

Again, the 7D II is just a paper release. I suspect it will be usable, but, your still just assuming that it's going to be flawless, just like your assuming the Samsung NX1 will be flawed. I'm a Canon guy myself...but, I'm no longer willing to lend my undying loyalty to them. They have demonstrated an excruciatingly slow pace of progress on the technological front. All those bells and whistles are useful things that can be put to good use. They are the least important thing, though, and pale in comparison to fundamental IQ...and area where Canon now ranks dead last among the growing number of competitors in this market. It's not like they are just "not best" anymore...they are the worst. I used to be able to say that Canon sensors have the same kind of read noise as MF sensors...but not even that is true anymore.

Even though it may not have explicitly mattered to the bulk of 7D II users, launching out the gate with a really kick-ass sensor that rocketed Canon's fundamental IQ factors forward into the 2010's would have been a wonderful sign of better things to come, especially where it's necessary. Instead...eh, IQ is the same as the 70D, maybe with a very minor improvement in color noise at high ISO. I mean, once it's all said and done...once you've framed and metered and focused...you have a sharp scene that just needs to be exposed. Canon already excelled on the AF front, and already had a great meter with iTR capabilities. The only area they needed to demonstrate improvement was the sensors, and no significant improvements have been demonstrated there.

If Canon had released a 7D II with a phenomenal sensor update paired with unparalleled features (like say good 4k video), I'd already be in line for the 5D IV. Instead, I'm now wondering...will the 5D IV be worth it? My biggest concern for the next body I buy is landscapes...and maybe video (getting more interested in that for creating a documentary video of the wildlife and birds in Colorado over a couple years, starting in Spring 2015). Canon has demonstrated nothing that interests me on either of those fronts. Not only doesn't interest me, but has forced me to look at other brands for solutions (where solutions actually exist, and are quite good if not exceptional). For years I've been a pretty die-hard Canon fan, hoping and hoping and hoping and hoping they do something about IQ...and now I'm totally open to competitors products. Usually that says something...here, it apparently just makes you an outcast...  ???

27
Post Processing / Re: Overall "brightness" when printing
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:08:04 PM »
I've never done much printing but having had to do some recently I am finding that more often than not, what looks perfect on my calibrated monitor comes out overall too dark when printed (by the local camera shop.)

I do often use Adorama for printing, and know that you can download the ICC profiles for their printers, but don't get how that relates to what I'm seeing on screen.  I primarily use Adobe Lightroom for my processing/editing.

Thanks for any advice!


You need to do a few things. First, remember that print is a subtractive model and screen is an additive model. The two produce color in effectively opposite ways with different primary colors.

You definitely should find the ICC profiles for the printers your lab is using. Use the Soft Proofing mode of PS or LR4+ to preview your images with that profile specifically (if you don't proof with the right ICC profile, things won't look correct).

A screen properly calibrated for print will usually use a white point that mimics the types of papers used. Natural fiber papers will usually have a warmer white point, while high brightness papers will usually have a cooler white point. You can either calibrate to D50 or D65 for those white points, to get the best matching (or if your really anal, you can figure out the actual white point of the paper and calibrate to that explicitly...but that's a bit overkill.) You also want to calibrate at a lower screen brightness. Most consumer screens tend to have very high brightness, 400mcd. For print, brightness should usually be between 80-120mcd, which is quite a bit dimmer. The reason for the lower brightness is to properly mimic the low highlight emission of reflected light off of the paper white...which unless you are using a particularly intense light very, very close to the print, is never very bright.

You should also make sure that when you soft proof, your proofing in the right rendering intent. You should contact the lab and figure out what rendering intent they use for the paper your asking them to print on. There are four primary intents: Absolute, Relative, Perceptual, Saturation. For print, Relative and Perceptual are usually the two most common, and for a given ICC profile, they can often produce quite different results. Both will automatically shift colors to fit within the gamut of the ink and paper, but sometimes they don't do so in the best way. There are ways around that...if your interested, I could go into it more...but it's a more advanced topic.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Will Canon answer Sony's new cinema cameras
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:00:02 PM »
Sony seems on a roll with video cameras:

1.  The A7s ... a tiny FF low-light monster that can do 4K with a recorder, and almost fit in your pocket.

2.  The Upcoming PXW-X70 which seems to beat Canons new XF200 on every spec, and adds goodies like HD-SDI, full size HDMI, wifi control and more ... for $1200 less!

3.  The upcoming PXW-FS7 which seems set to clobber the C300 in every way at nearly half the price. Reviewers are saying that this camera will even compete against Sony's own very expensive, and much larger, F5 and F55 cameras.

Can Canon afford to wait? Or will Sony eat their cinema lunch? What do you think Canon will offer against these formidable Sony cams?

Canon had it all in the bag, but seems intent and giving it all away due being too conservative these days, having too much fear of internal cannibalization and too little fear of outside, too focused on milking things for too long.

The 7D2 is a prime example. The image quality is already completely out of date and the camera is not even on the shelves yet.

The worst thing that ever happened to Canon video is the second Canon marketing realized their engineers had accidentally stumbled onto something big (and I saw accidentally, because they were so out of touch that they didn't even imagine anyone would possible want manual controls for video on a 5 series camera! they have these tight little focus groups so all they heard from was some PJ who wanted ultra automatic, easy run and gun video and totally missed the clearly obvious bigger picture, but as soon as marketing realzied the bigger picture they went into we better make some new high end stuff and make sure to cripple the DSLR video as much as possible and proceed as slowly as we can to milk, milk, milk). And now, as you say SOny has a serious movie camera for the price of a 1DC that utterly blows the 1DC out of the water for serious filming. They have the A7S that blow away every single Canon DSLR for in camera 1080p quality (if you want to deal with RAW, the 5D3 with Magic Lantern RAW is good though, but that is only because of some brilliant hackers) and with a $2000 add-on can record a nicer 4k than the 1DC (so that is $4900 for A7S+NinjaShogun+Metabones lens adapter vs $10,000 and the lower priced SONY option gives you better video quality)!

I agree, and I hope this is just part of the leapfrog game, because when Canon gets it right they can hit it out of the ballpark. But Sony seems to be reaching for the stars with these new releases.

Aye, I think Canon's lagging farther and farther behind the packs (yes, it's plural now. :P)

I think Canon could have reached for the stars with the 7D II, delivering a home run on every single technology front. Instead, they did the same old thing...improve a couple key features, threw in GPS (seemingly as an afterthought, otherwise I think they would have had both GPS and WiFi and possibly even NFC), and called it a day. Oh, wait...they threw in another layer if microlenses on the sensor as well.

A "reach for the stars" home run would have had a kickass wicked new sensor based on radical new technology (or maybe just technology as good as the competition), GPS, WiFi, NFC, Dual CFast 2, 4k video, basically all the bells and whistles. The Samsung NX1 sounds to me, technologically, what the 7D II should have been...a high resolution ISOCELL BSI sensor with high FPS, and all the bells and whistles. The only thing the Samsung lacks is a lens lineup and awesome customer support.

29
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:54:44 PM »
The point of having better data to start with is to reduce the amount of effort required to produce better data in the end.

Despite having more pixels, the D810 did not "capture better data" in the IR studio scene. So I'm curious as to how it would save any time, especially when it takes your computer longer to process each step with 36 MP.

I'm not against higher resolution when it yields a benefit. But jumping from 22/24 to 36 MP with today's sensor technology seems to yield no real benefit.

Your still misunderstanding. You could make the 5D III image as sharp, by sharpening. My point is you wouldn't have to do the extra step of sharpening the 5D III image to achieve the same results.

I would mess with sharpening on ANY photo. The two Nikon guys I know pretty well...both of whom have a ton of Nikon pro equipment...sharpen every one of their photos. The D810 doesn't eliminate that step. What step does it eliminate exactly?

Quote
Also, with a more critical eye, I do think that some people could pick out differences between two photos

I would like to see that pair of prints.

Quote
There are certain things about D800 milky way photos that I particularly like...a richness of black background sky levels, that are not just pure flat black but still nuanced with detail, as the sky really is, that I don't see in milky way photos taken with a 5D III. There is also a crisper look to stars in milky way photos taken with D800/D810 that just isn't quite there with the 5D III.

Can you point to a pair shot under similar conditions that illustrate this?

I could provide evidence. In the past, I have provided evidence. In every single case, you have managed to find some way to refute every single thing, even RAWs that demonstrated the differences quite clearly. You have made your expectations quite clear, that you won't accept any piece of evidence unless it comes directly from me, made by my own two hands, with the cameras in question, with each and every photo explicitly maximizing the potential of the given camera (so as to be absolutely fair), while supplying the original RAWs.

So, until such time as I have a chance to do that in an effective manner, I will be ignoring all requests from you.  When the time comes that I actually DO provide the requested information exactly as demanded...I'm going to predict right now that you will STILL find a way to dismiss it all. So to be clear, when I do provide comparison examples, it won't be for your benefit. It'll be for the benefit of everyone who is interested in knowing the facts and having actual RAW files they can play with themselves to see the differences for themselves.

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Sample Images From the EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 19, 2014, 07:50:21 PM »
Unprocessed Raws are a complete irrelevance, of course

Actually they provide the only base-line comparison for image quality.

Agreed. Processed RAW files can demonstrate the editing latitude, but things rapidly become subjective. Comparisons become much more difficult.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 304