July 23, 2014, 10:47:12 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 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 248
1501
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 12:51:30 PM »
+1 ... why should we "just rip" someone's photos "to shreds"?

Because that is the nature of pack animals.

Seriously? Insulting just one of us wasn't enough, so now you have to insult the whole lot of us by calling us "pack animals"?

You have lost all credibility. You've fallen back on the most baser level of animalistic instincts yourself here, and stooped to the lowest level. There is nothing more to say to you.

I encourage everyon to ignore Dilbert, either figuratively or literally via this forums ignore feature, and get back to the original topic of discussion. Because this man is NOT worth responding to.

1502
EOS Bodies / Re: Just Touching the Surface of Dual Pixel Technology? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 04:49:56 AM »
I'm ready for QPAF (Quad Pixel).
HDR plus AF.
it seems like a natural evolution to me

I'm not sure DPAF or a hypothetical evolution to QPAF is really a means to achieving HDR. Remember, ML had to cut resolution in half in order to achieve its makeshift approach, not because they did not have dual pixels...but because they had to use both the per-pixel amps as well as a secondary downstream amp. Doesn't matter how many times you dice up a pixel...if you have to use the downstream amplifier to achieve ML's style of "HDR", then diced pixels won't help.

Additionally, HDR implies 32-bit float data storage. Current camera ADCs are still limited to 14 bits int. Canon already has 12 stops of DR...seems a bit extreme to use such a convoluted approach to improving that by a mere two stops, when their problem actually lies in the ADCs themselves. Canon could take a far simpler approach...increase the parallelism of the ADCs, and move them closer to the pixels, to reduce the amount of noise they introduce into the signal. That's what everyone else is doing, and it is quite effective.

Assuming Canon was able to use QPAF to do some form of HDR...unless they increase the bit depth of the ADC, it isn't really going to be HDR. You would still be limited to 14 stops of DR, albeit achieved via a rather convoluted apprach that could be more costly and less effective than simply modernizing their read pipeline architecture. To get true HDR, Canon would need to use 32-bit ADC, and use floats rather than ints. At the very least, to improve DR by a meaningful degree, they would need to move to 16-bit integer ADC, however that wouldn't necessarily be "HDR".

1503
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 04:26:53 AM »
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say my work is particularly great or anything. Not at all. Just that I don't think it's "junk"... I've never been satisfied with it, but I don't think it's junk.

1504
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: December 02, 2013, 03:04:31 AM »
OK, I finally did a set up for my waxwing friends.  First I cleared my pond of all the snow -whew.  Then I got out the garden hose and stretched out all 200 feet of it over there this morning after the sun was coming up.  Then I invited my friends to model for me once I got the water distributed.  Unfortunately, they would not behave!! ;)  What a bunch of troublemakers.

6D 300 X2  1600th F8  ISO 1600

Jack

Sometimes misbehaving is exactly what you want! :P Great shot.

1505
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 02, 2013, 03:03:18 AM »
One of the regulars in CR asked me to post some of my Images shot with the 300f/2.8 L II, so I've pulled these four as examples of just how well the Lens works on either the 1Dx or the 5DMK III.

I wasn't able to pull up any shot with this Lens + the 1.4x converter, I've tested this Combo and found it's a perfect match, very little degradation viewable, but I very seldom use the combo as I've always had the 400f/2.8 L II as well, now the 200-400f/4.

The 300f/2.8 L II is one of my absolute main stay Lenses, sharp, fast to focus & light.

Stunning work! The first shot, in particular, is just beautiful. Love that partial silhouette and backlighting.

I rented the 300/2.8 L II last year. Really loved that lens. With TCs, it is extremely versatile. I used it with both 1.4x and 2x TCs, and even at 600/5.6, it's IQ was as good as or better than my 100-400mm lens. I would call it the ideal wildlifers lens...gives you top quality versatility for almost any situation except very distant subjects.

1506
EOS Bodies / Re: "Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?
« on: December 02, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »
On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it.  CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action.  PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.

That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.

It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to misinterpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not not the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.

1507
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 02, 2013, 12:59:06 AM »
That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.


And you know this because...?

Quote
As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.


And you know this because...?


I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800?


So you've never heard someone say "I like the green from Nikon DLSRs better" or "I like the blue from Canon DSLRs better"?


Sure I have. I've also seen their results, which, as I said, look nothing like what actually came directly out of the camera.


And if what you were saying was true then the graph attached at the bottom would show both lines together, right?


The graph represents an imperceptible difference that can only be discerned by software. And, again...it is based off the strait out of camera RAW. You can RADICALLY change those results by tweaking the raw with a very basic algorithm. You can make the 5D III better than the D800, or make the D800's margin even wider. Color is all about mathematical processing.

Depending on how much time you spend in "Photoshop", you can change the colour or compensate for the lack of colour, white balance, etc, to come close to making it not matter which camera you use. But just as using RAW is better than using JPEG (because the data you have available is better to work with), so too is higher quality data (from e.g. the D800) better.


The D800, in some respects, does have MORE data. It has less read noise, so it preserves more data in the shadows. Beyond that, "higher quality"? Nah. It's all bits...ones and zeros, encoding some known original quantity that can be reduced, divided, and redistributed however we please. We aren't talking about preserving analog data in it's original untainted form here.

Think of it like comparing a purely analog audio system in a hard core audiophile's home, the best of the best, $400,000 worth of vibration replication perfection, reading a pure analog signal off a pristine record played on a turntable with 10 degrees of vibration reduction, piping it through the highest quality vacuum tubes and analog processors, sending the filtered signal that is nearly entirely free of noise along the highest quality cabling to a pair of $100,000 (each) speakers, set in an audio room with the most exquisite wood supports and wall paneling that enrich the unmitigated perfection of musical sound permeating every cell of your body (trust me...it really IS like that! :D) The equipment, in that circumstance, is EVERYTHING. You can't beat audio from such a system, it is pure bliss, music of the gods to the ears...literally.

When it comes to playing back CDs? There are a few things you can do in order to improve the quality of your sound. You can buy high quality electronics that don't introduce much additional noise of their own, and for every bit less noise, you pay another order of magnitude in cost. But the simple fact of the matter is that a CD has already been limited, already been restricted, already been diminished from the original source. It doesn't matter if your working with 20 bits or 24 bits, the original unfettered, pure fidelity of the native analog signal is lost. You cannot replicate it, no matter how good your equipment. The vast majority of people who play their CDs can't tell the difference between 44khz and 48kz, let alone 96khz...or 20 bits vs. 24 bits. The frequencies that those bits represent, while a $100,000 CD playback system may preserve them, are beyond the average range of human sensitivity.

A DSLR is basically synonymous with Audio CD systems. It doesn't matter if your color quality is 23 bits or 24 bits...the original fidelity of your native image signal, the one projected by the lens, was lost the moment a sensor packed with evenly arranged discrete sensing elements recorded that signal, and converted it into a sequence of...numbers. From that point on, everything about that image was digital and mathematical.

Now, if your personal style is to take photos and print em strait up, without any processing, then sure...these minute differences in cameras could very well matter. You might not ACTUALLY be able to tell the difference, but if knowing that one particular camera has half a bit more accurate color reproduction makes you feel as though your raw work is better, more power to ya. If you are like 99% of the rest of the billion plus photographers on planet Earth...sorry, they don't really matter much at all. The most significant benefit of the D800 is its extra DR, but that simply improves your editing latitude, allowing you to extract detail in areas where detail was lost to electronic noise. It doesn't do a damn thing for the final color quality of your post-process results. And it only does it at low ISO, to boot, so the value of improved DR is limited in applicability.

Quote
Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.


Quite right however everyone wants the best possible source material to work with or else they wouldn't use RAW, would they?


RAW, sure. Doesn't matter what camera the RAW comes from. Again, the RAW is the source. What you end up with rarely ever looks like the source, or is even "color accurate", because it is based on artistic vision, personal style, not hardware. What matters is what you end up with...the destination, per-se. I'd challenge you to pick out which camera made which photo if I presented you a range of, say, landscape photos from some photo site or sites (that had all EXIF information stripped). You would certainly randomly guess a few correctly, but in general it would all just be guesses. You can't tell from the final results of an artists processing where their photos came from. It's all the same in the end...the result of mathematic functions applied to an input stream of pixels, rendering an output stream of pixels. Discrete data, in digital form, all having lost the purity and infinite precision of the original. The data doesn't matter. What matters is the photographer's vision.

Quote
I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!


The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work.


I wouldn't want to be too quick on that as a lot of the material I've seen here and the "wow, cool" means a lot of junk is praised when it shouldn't be.


Nice. Clever, underhanded way to fling out an insult. Your very good at that, I applaud your skill...you've apparently put just as much time and effort into honing that as I do into honing the art of my photography.

I would be curious to know if you honestly think my work is "junk", though...as I suspect your words were simply poorly chosen:

http://www.jonrista.com

1508
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:32:16 PM »


I think you forgot to include Ansel Adams? You know, the guy that invented the zone based metering system?


The Zone System is not a "zone based metering system" it is a system of prioritising the import part of a scenes dynamic range before exposure to maximise that tonal areas reproduction in a subsequent print. Printing is the be all and end all of Adams' system, how best to expose the scene within the DR limitations of the camera system to achieve what he foresees in a print.

Adams was happy to work within the limitations of his systems DR, that certainly had less than the Sony/Nikon sensor, he was all about realising his artistic vision regardless of where in the range of tones the primary subject was, he blew highlights and blocked shadows when he wanted. His point was to expose the key tones correctly and let the rest fall where it may.

Sounds like he'd hate HDR then, don't you agree?

Are you truly serious? Or are you just trolling? Because this is a ludicrous response....

1509
EOS Bodies / Re: New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 11:27:06 PM »
Certain indications point to 40-45 MP with dual ISO. Upgrades to their Cinema line point to higher upgrades in hardware and firmware in new models. Dual sensors two sizes in one, two processors combining to cover 8K resolution and 3D  with dual pixels, auto phase and contrast detect with dual ISO. Will be kind of hard to beat. Betting though everything in focus is their goal with a function to blur what you want around subject, and more creative filters. So everything is in focus, you could zoooooom way, way out and its perfect in focus like the Canon Wonder Cam. Next line of labeling  Canon DC a1/ DUAL CAM advance 1. two sensors possible two different sizes. Sony is useing dual sensors and is Apple in their next phones. Dual lenses would be a heck of a killer a 12mm and a 100mm

Assuming this post isn't some kind of joke...

Dual ISO won't happen. That is a ML discovery of a happy quirk in the design of Canon's readout system. There is no telling that Canon will use the same system in future bodies, and in fact, I personally hope they don't...the downstream amplifier and the use of a downstream, off-die ADC is a significant part of the reason why their low ISO read noise is so bad. Canon really needs to develop a modern sensor, with on-die ADC, and preferably digital readout...at which point, Dual ISO wouldn't even be an option, since there would be no need for the downstream amplifier.

I'd figure the chances of Canon actually employing MLs Dual ISO discovery are so vanishingly small, they barely qualify as a mathematic point.

I also don't see Canon employing any kind of light field technology any time soon. For one, Canon always develops their own technology, while light field technology is currently owned by someone else. Lytro's cameras have a LONG ways to go before light field even really becomes a generally viable technology as well, and I don't see them selling the technology any time soon.

1510
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:33:26 PM »



All lovely, but this one is just spot on.

Would be interested to know what Gear was used.


Ditto. These photos are simply wonderful. The lighting, especially that blue highlight, is quite unique.

1511
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:32:52 PM »
This past summer, while I was photographing birds at one of our local wetland preserves, a fairly large group of female deer, ranging in age from yearlings to several years old and maybe a couple elders, wandered up for a drink.

All good, but the second Image is just about perfect, lovely background, almost a painterly touch to the Image, really, well done.

Thank you, very much. :)

I learned a lot with that photo. One of my favorites. It is slated to take up one of the largest spaces on my wall one of these days (when I can afford to print it.)

I have to say, I learned a lot with that shot. Had to get some very close foreground grass at just the right position in the frame to create a continuous blur. It's an effect I hope to replicate, if I can ever find the time to get back out there... (Hopefully soon...the rut is on!)

1512
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:23:54 PM »
That said, color reproduction in the digital world is 99% post-process mathematics...tone curves and camera profiles and custom color channel tuning. Color accuracy, or achieving a personal aesthetic color style, has very little to do with out of camera color these days.

And you know this because...?

Quote
As for noise, Canon's have no more or less photon shot noise than any other camera...they have more read noise, however that only exists in the deep shadows, and only exhibits if you LIFT the deep shadows.

And you know this because...?

I know it because I've studied the subject. It's a bit of a hobby (a very time consuming one...)

It is also common sense. If color wasn't primarily a mathematical thing, then why is it that the 5D III photographs I see from the world's best...landscape photographers, portrait photographers, macro photographers, etc....have color that is just as good as any photo from the D800? Not only that, why is it that the color of the worlds best photographs that were taken with a 5D III look ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the RAW images look when taken strait out of the camera (i.e. directly off the memory card without processing)? The color quality of a photograph has nothing to do with the strength of the CFA, or how the colored pixels are arranged, or how much native dynamic range the sensor has. Color quality is a matter of personal style. Each and every digital photographer produces THEIR OWN color style, and it never resembles the native camera output.

I think unfocused put it best:

You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

The quality of a photograph, assuming it was captured properly, has everything to do with the photographer. Artistic vision is what makes a good photograph good.

Cameras are simply about enabling the photographer to capture photos well. It doesn't matter how good a camera you have, or how good it's native color reproduction...if the photographer has no vision, they will never make visionary photographs...

I know a lot about the technical aspects of photography. They matter, because that knowledge helps me choose the tool that will best service my skill to realize my artistic vision. That said, the thing I care about most, more than the technology, is: How do my photographs look?

I have examples posted all over these forums, if you wish to take a look. I get a lot of compliments, but the simple fact of the matter is I'm rarely satisfied with my work. I don't blame my lack of satisfaction on my equipment. My equipment is excellent, even though these days it is technologically inferior. I blame my lack of satisfaction for not having the ability to fully realize my vision...what I see in my minds eye is often not what I see in my results. No amount of equipment will ever fix that...doesn't matter how much DR Sony and Nikon pump out...the only thing that can fix the deficiency in my art is a continued, exerted effort to improve it myself.



And you know this because...?

So, how do I know? Well, common sense, really. An eye for the obvious.

1513
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 09:16:27 PM »
Can we get back to useless talk of the new FF Canon 1D-U?  ("U" is for unicorn)

Doh! Now you've done it! "Unicorn." It'll be a mythological creature forever. :P

1514
EOS Bodies / Re: Two New Full Frame Cameras in 2014? [CR1]
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:56:44 PM »
Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ...

Actually it is. Colour reproduction is what it is all about. Why do you think there was more than one film back in the day? And that photographers preferred to use one film over another? Graininess and colour reproduction.

What about composition and focus?  A poorly composed or poorly focused shot with high DR goes in the bitbucket.  However, a well composed and well focused image, with slightly less DR, can be outstanding.

Orangutan and Rienzphotoz, you just don't understand.

Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, Robert Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, W. Eugene Smith...all those people and others...their pictures are great because of dynamic range.

It's a well-known fact that Robert Frank was the most influential photographer of the second half of the twentieth century because his images were always sharp, full of dynamic range, without visible grain and perfectly in focus. Oh...wait...they weren't any of those things. You don't suppose he was important because of the strength of his vision? Naw...couldn't be that!

+100!

1515
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: December 01, 2013, 05:53:56 PM »
Hi Jrista.
That must have been a fabulous experience, shame about being too so close they were inside your minimum zoom range, oh well sometimes it may not be just about he pictures. Great as they are!
My guess for these two pictures is, "Was that a twig or just that bloke with the Canon?" ;D 8)
Regal animals, thanks.

Cheers Graham.

Thanks! :) It was pretty exciting. The young yearlings are always curious. Both the males and the females, when they are only a year old or less, don't fully know to fear humans. So, they will look at you with the most curious of faces, and sneek in closer and closer, until they are maybe 15-20 feet from you. Then they get a little scared, start stomping the ground, and will usually take off, prancing about for a while, before they feel safe enough to come back in for another close look at that odd camo-covered creature making clicking noises (i.e. "Was that a twig or just that bloke with the Canon?").  ;D 8)

As for the lens, no zoom range. It was the EF 600mm f/4 L II prime, with a 1.4x TC attached. To maximize IQ, I've pretty much done away with zooms...too many compromises. The TC costs a little bit in IQ, but with a lens like the 600/4, it is still worlds better than the 100-400mm zoom, for example. I thought about removing the TC, but sometimes deer just move through really fast, and in the time it takes to change out or remove a TC, they can be gone. So, I just took the shots as they occurred.

Pages: 1 ... 99 100 [101] 102 103 ... 248