December 18, 2014, 03:50:39 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 ... 320
16
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica: Trouble in paradise?
« on: December 11, 2014, 10:56:12 PM »
It can take some time to resolve obscure issues, especially when they do not necessarily affect every single product sold.

That didn't stop Canon being ripped a new butt over the largely internet hyped 1D MkIII AF soap opera. Nobody could reliably reproduce the 'issue', just some cameras didn't do well shooting some subjects at some temperatures, sometimes, yet the internet had a firestorm and Canon didn't know how or what to do to placate everybody, most of whom never even touched a 1D MkIII.


QSI is getting ripped over the glow issue, too. Human nature, I guess.

17
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Leica: Trouble in paradise?
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:44:52 PM »
The issue is not with the sensor, but with the glass cover.  If it is scratched thru its coating, them corrosion will form on the glass, not the sensor.  Leica does not yet have a solution that will solve the issue.  In the meantime, they are fixing cameras with a identical part.  Eventually, a permanent solution with a different glass cover will be found.  Owners should refraining from scratching that glass cover if that's even possible.


+1


Sometimes there isn't a known solution to a problem. Leica is not the only company to experience such issues. I'm currently evaluating buying a Quantum Scientific Imaging CCD camera. There are two options, one is a newer design that uses a Sony sensor. QSI is a very reputable company, they produce very high quality parts...but sometimes things slip through. There is a faint "glow" problem with some of their Sony based cameras. It's an extremely faint glow, and even with it, the quality of images from these cameras surpasses most others. It's still an issue, though, given that these things cost at least four grand. The company has not yet issued a statement or recall covering a resolution yet...simply because they do not have one. It can take some time to resolve obscure issues, especially when they do not necessarily affect every single product sold.

18
This article hits uncomfortably close to home. In complete confidence of course, I can probably be persuaded to admit that I am seriously considering buying my next white lens on a 'buy now pay later' scheme - although I never go into debt for anything - ever. Photography has corrupted me...

Well, to be fair, white lenses can qualify as investments. I haven't seen one that's value has undergone depreciation. May I ask who is this worthy contender?


 I bought my 600/4 L II new, on sale, from Canada. I instantly made about $2000 on my investment. ;)

19
This article made me wonder how our spouses feel being married to men with photography-related G.A.S.
Change the cycling stuff to photographic gear, and disregard the middle age part (for now), and you've got me.
 :-\

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2869069/Oh-shame-married-MAMIL-s-Middle-Aged-Man-Lycra.html


Just wait until he gets into astrophotography. Then, instead of "Hey honey, can I spend $3500 on a new camera? Please!" or "Hey Honey, can I spend $2500 on a new lens? Please!" it'll be "Hey honey, can I spend $18,000 on this awesome new equatorial tracking mount with absolute encoding and in-mount sky modeling?" (no please, he's caught you off guard with a highly technical sounding thing...hoping your bewildered and will accidentally say yes), then "Hey honey, can I spend $10,000 on this new CCD camera?" and finally "Hey honey, can I spend $35,000 on a new Corrected Dall-Kirkam telescope from PlaneWave? PLEASE! I'll buy you that new car you want! :D"


Photography, expensive... Psh. You have NOOO IDEA. :P (I LOVE being single right now...)

20
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 11, 2014, 07:25:57 PM »
Alan, a couple of things. First, did you click on my images for full size?


Second, regarding the feet. I was at 1200mm f/10...working with a ridiculously thin DOF. My chickadees feet aren't sharp because they are not in focus. My goal wasn't to get sharp feet, though...it was to get the head and eye sharp. To that end, I believe, despite 1/100s, I succeeded. (I just wish he hadn't hopped from the beautiful pine branch to the tripod before I did! :P)


As for the sharpness of your shots overall...honestly, I'm a little disappointed. Maybe it's just the disheveled nature of the birds, not sure...but, I guess I kind of expected more out of that lens. The Canon 100-400 could get MUCH sharper than that...and I mean the OLD 100-400...

21
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 11, 2014, 05:45:51 PM »
Alrighty. I've done some more testing. I am beginning to distrust FoCal...it does not seem to be calibrating my equipment as ideally as it could be. I decided to do a quick and dirty AFMA check and tweak. I just set it at 0, -10, -20, +10 and +20. Took a few shots of the same target (lens and camera were on a tripod.) The differences were fairly obvious, +10 looked best. I tried +5, that looked slightly better.


The differences with the 600 + 2x TC OOC look MUCH better now. The birds are quite sharp strait out of camera, and they get very sharp with just a little sharpening. Below is a single photo from a more challenging burst of frames, as I was at 1/100th shutter...with a Chickadee. :P Anyone who's photographed Chickadees knows how ludicrously insane it is to try and get a sharp result at 1/100th second. :D


Anyway, managed to (with the limited 6fps of the 5D III even) get one frame that was sharp, at 1200mm f/10, ISO 800. I'm attaching three full size 1:1 scale crops, of the original image, sharpened only, then with a little bit of toning to bring down those highlights...just to reveal all the detail that is there. Personally...I'm pretty impressed at how sharp the 600/4 L II+2x TC III can be strait out of camera. My earlier softness was apparently just due to an improper AFMA selection by FoCal (that my extremely rudimentary and hackish approach handily bested.)



22
Interesting. I hope he does more testing...very curious to see how the Samsung products (not just the body, but the lenses as well) compare overall, at the wide and long, at max aperture and f/8.

23
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 08, 2014, 10:34:36 PM »
The TC III's improve corner performance over the TC II's as well, on top of the improved AF capabilities (which I believe only work with the 1D X.)

24
7D II (horizontal, red cast):



5D III (horizontal and vertical, red cast):



NX1 (none, neutral):


25
Animal Kingdom / Re: The 1200mm Sharpness Test
« on: December 08, 2014, 03:13:00 PM »
What's the consesnus on the 1.4x II vs the 1.4x III? I own a 1.4xII and 500 f/4 IS USM and I leave the 1.4 in the closet. The loss in resolution is very discernible.


The 600/4 II with 1.4x TC III seems to produce very sharp results. It is not as sharp as possible right in the corners, but overall, I don't feel as though I'm losing anything with the 1.4x. The 2x produces what you see here, an apparent softening, but it is pretty easy to clean up. The TC III series were designed specifically to maximize the potential of the supertele L II series...so it I suspect the results are better than with the TC II series and original supertele L series lenses.

26

IMO, the presence of horizontal banding and the lack of vertical banding suggests that they've started scanning the sensor in the opposite direction, i.e. row major versus column major order or vice versa, rather than an improvement in the sensor or preamplifier technology.


Horizontal banding has been present in Canon cameras for years. It's present in my 5D III, just to a slightly lesser degree than in the 7D II. The big difference is that the 5D III has the sharp vertical banding as well...the 7D II lacks that pretty much entirely. I think that just revealed an existing horizontal banding problem (something I've seen before with both the 5D III and original 7D in my astro images). The horizontal banding does seem more pronounced, but it is not a row-wise banding like the column-wise vertical banding was...they are much fatter, around 10 rows and softer. I don't think it's a change in readout orientation...it seems logical that would remain row activate, column readout.


I guess the softer horizontal banding is less likely to be a problem for most photography...it goes in the direction our eyes naturally scan, left to right...so were now scanning with the grain. It is also fairly faint, so it probably wouldn't show up unless you were shooting in low light at a low ISO and were lifting the shadows a lot.

27

Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.

I know exactly what you mean, this was the issue i had with the A7 at high ISO.  I'm not sure I saw anything like that in the 7D2 samples I played with but I'd need to check again.  Do you see this on the 5D3 as well or just 7D2 samples?


I see it in every Canon file once I start lifting the shadows enough. It usually doesn't take much, a stop and a half. It's pretty bad with the 5D III, it seems milder with the 7D II. I think Canon may have moved to their newer fabs for the 7D II sensor. If Roger Clark is right about the dark current, and if the Q.E. really is 59%, then this is the first sensor from Canon in a long while that is starting to rival Exmor as far as dark current levels go. If Roger is right, it may even be a little better in terms of dark current than an Exmor.


If the color blotch problem is a consequence of the RAW engine, then Canon has certainly made some strides. They eliminated vertical banding and gained a little bit of horizontal banding (but it is soft, so, not nearly as intrusive as what the 5D III has), lowered dark current, and increased Q.E. Read noise is introduced by the readout pipeline, probably primarily by the ADC units Canon uses. So, that is probably something they could fix (basically, anything that reduces ADC frequency should help.)


I am pretty amazed at how clean the NX1 files are though. Very clean, very neutral random noise, much lower than Canon's. I am hoping Chipworks tears apart both sensors and gives us a detailed look at the designs. I'd love to see what's changed at a low level in Canon's sensor, and what Samsung has done with theirs.

28


I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.


I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras... :(


I am beginning to think now that Adobe's algorithms in Lightroom are indeed becoming rather dated. They don't render the data in the RAW files as well as they could be. I don't remember who asserted that in the past, but I think they may be right. Here's to hoping Lightroom 6.x gets a much-needed rewrite of the rendering pipeline, one that eliminates the color blotch with Canon files.


I did notice that LensRentals.com now has the NX1 on preorder:


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/compact/samsung/samsung-nx1


Woo! Not sure that I'll have a chance to try it out before the end of the year, but I'm glad they have it. They have a number of lenses as well. I think I'd give the NX1 and the 16-50 a try at the very least...but since this is something I'm curious about as an alternative to a 7D II for birds, I may hold off until Samsung releases their 300mm f/2.8 lens first. One thing I did learn recently is there do not seem to be teleconverters for the NX line mount yet. That might be an issue for me...if I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 lens, I would want both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and not having them would probably be a deal breaker. Maybe if Canon lenses AF well on the NX1 with an adapter...but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for a while. :'(

I know they've had the NX1 up for pre-order for at least a month or two as I almost tried to order one for testing before an event I shot over the thanksgiving weekend.


Hmm, odd. I only saw the Samsung entry in their list of brands show up recently.



As for the weird NX1 noise, I can definitely believe that it could have something to do with the LR conversion although I'm not quite sure how DPReview arrived at their DNG files.  The craziest part of those results to me is that before color noise reduction the NX1 definitely looks better but after you remove the color noise the 7D2 looks better, at least to my eye.  I don't think I've ever seen that happen before.  I've seen cameras become essentially equal after you remove the color noise but never swap positions like that.


The thing about the 7D II is that after color noise removal, as in the more speckled finer grained color noise, you have that blotchy color left behind. Again, though...maybe that really is just poor demosaicing algorithms. C1 doesn't seem to do that. Kind of funny, to think that Adobe's RAW engine is now old and potentially less effective than it could be today...but I think that may be the case.


Personally, the large blotchy color left behind after your regular color noise reduction is what bugs me the most. There is very little that can clean that up nicely. If Adobe could fix their RAW engine to NOT produce that in the first place, then one of my biggest complaints about Canon RAW images would be gone. They still wouldn't have the dynamic range, but, at least the data would be cleaner. I don't really want to spend the couple hundred bucks on C1 Pro, as it's workflow doesn't seem as nice to me as Lightrooms, and it has a limited range of DSLR compatibility...but I may jut do that for the IQ.

29

I have exactly the opposite experience. Per-pixel color noise isn't difficult...the real difficulty with color noise is the blotches...the stuff that spans 50-100 pixel areas. I believe Neutral knows what I'm talking about. It shows up in shadow areas and at high ISO, and it is nearly impossible to clean up without obliterating detail. I've tried using TGVDenoise as well as several multiscale noise reduction routines on it within PixInsight, and it is just NOT easy to clean up, and impossible to clean up without a visible cost to detail (due to it's scale...you have to factor in large pixel areas, so of course it's going to affect detail.)


This is what surprised me about the comparison I posted above, the 7D2 is on the left and the NX1 is on the right.  From the DPReview low light samples what I'm seeing is that at 6400 (and 12.8K although I didn't post it since the NX1 seems to fall apart more significantly over 6400) the 7D2 definitely looks worse before chroma noise reduction but then the 7D2 looks considerably better after a small amount of chroma noise reduction.


Are you reducing the noise on Neutrals screen captures? If so, the NX1 has been downsampled. Reduce noise at full size then downsample, and no matter what you do to the 7D II, the NX1 still look better.

I applied the standard chroma noise reduction to the RAW files and then downsampled to JPGs.  The 7D2 definitely looks better at 6400 and 12800; the NX1 has a kind of funky quality to the noise.


I noticed a slight amount of something when I denoised the 6400 and 12800 images. Not sure what that is. Hopefully it is simply very early versions of the demosaicing support for the NX1 files in ACR/LR.


I have been testing out CaptureOne Pro. CaptureOne does seem to render a better quality noise with Canon files than LR does. I'm not going to say it's groundbreaking, but it doesn't seem to exhibit that horrid blotchy color noise that I loath so much in my Canon files with Lightroom. Sadly, C1 does not seem to have any support for Samsung cameras... :(


I am beginning to think now that Adobe's algorithms in Lightroom are indeed becoming rather dated. They don't render the data in the RAW files as well as they could be. I don't remember who asserted that in the past, but I think they may be right. Here's to hoping Lightroom 6.x gets a much-needed rewrite of the rendering pipeline, one that eliminates the color blotch with Canon files.


I did notice that LensRentals.com now has the NX1 on preorder:


http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/compact/samsung/samsung-nx1


Woo! Not sure that I'll have a chance to try it out before the end of the year, but I'm glad they have it. They have a number of lenses as well. I think I'd give the NX1 and the 16-50 a try at the very least...but since this is something I'm curious about as an alternative to a 7D II for birds, I may hold off until Samsung releases their 300mm f/2.8 lens first. One thing I did learn recently is there do not seem to be teleconverters for the NX line mount yet. That might be an issue for me...if I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 lens, I would want both 1.4x and 2x teleconverters, and not having them would probably be a deal breaker. Maybe if Canon lenses AF well on the NX1 with an adapter...but I suspect that wouldn't be the case for a while. :'(

30
Software & Accessories / Re: Two monitors vs ultra-wide one?
« on: December 07, 2014, 07:44:06 PM »
Does anyone know if the Dell 5k will use a hardware LUT or not? Some of their previous screens used a 12-bit LUT, which was pretty decent. I'd rather have a 5k NEC with a 14-bit LUT and all the other graphics-grade features their paXXXw screens had in the past, but there hasn't been any news from NEC about even delivering 4k versions of their paXXXw line, let alone a 5k version. I like the idea of a 5k screen, as it would let you edit 4k video at full resolution (no scaling) while still providing room to display a UI around it. ;)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 320