August 30, 2014, 06:15:43 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 273
31
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 06:21:10 PM »
Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....

Shooting birds/wildlife/(sports) is arguably one of the most common, if not the most common, 'reach-limited' scenario. When you were shooting birds and wildlife before getting a 600/4L IS II and 5DIII, IIRC you primarily used a 7D + 100-400L.  That's an eminently hand-holdable combo (I know, because it's what I used for birds/wildlife before getting a 1D X and 600 II).  What percentage of your reach limited 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were from a tripod?  (Note: if you cropped the image more than a small reframing in post, you were reach limited.)

The 'optimal ISO' for any camera is as low as possibleWhat percentage of your 7D + 100-400L bird/wildlife shots were at ISO 100?

You seem to be suggesting that most 'reach limited' shooters are using a tripod and base ISO, and I seriously doubt that's the case.  You're also implying that anyone not using a tripod and shooting at base ISO when reach limited doesn't know what they're doing, meaning you might not like the obvious implication if you can't honestly answer the above two questions as 100%.

The vast majority of my bird photos were shot from a tripod, 100-400 and 600 alike. I've hand-held both, and for  BIF I hand-hold, but for the most part, my bird photography is from a tripod. I'd say the majority of my wildlife is from a tripod as well, although I hand-hold for that more often. I've cropped to as little as 10% of the frame before, however as my skill improved, crops were usually 50% or so of the frame, which is still definitely reach limited.

I also NEVER said base ISO. I don't know why I have to keep saying this, but please don't put words in my mouth. I explicitly said ISO 400 and 800, as in decent light or better, that's usually where I am (and ISO 1600)...and decent light or better is what you want! :P It is only in post-sunset light that I've shot at ISO 3200 and up, however the 7D has done very well at ISO 3200 in the past...but again, from a tripod. I very rarely shoot anything at base ISO, but that isn't the point here. The point is that the primary target group for the 7D II is the same target group for the 7D...bird and wildlife shooters.

Hand-holding throws a massive amount of uncertainty into the mix. It doesn't matter if you are hand-holding a crop camera or a full frame camera...hand-holding completely removes any consistency, even for the same photographer. You could just as easily have someone with very steady hands and excellent skill with a 7D and someone with unsteady hands with a 5D III or 1D X. We want a fair comparison between the resolution of a crop camera and a full frame camera. Hand-holdability eliminates any possibility of a reasonable comparison. As Don said, this whole hand-holdability vs. tripod argument is a red herring. It UNNECESSARILY complicates things, for absolutely no gain whatsoever.

We can compare the sensors of crop and FF cameras. We HAVE compared them, on many occasions. PBD himself has often shared his own comparison, which says the same thing as everyone elses, that crop cameras (even the 7D, with it's stronger AA filter) is still resolving more detail than a FF sensor. I disagree with the assertion that the resolution difference is completely and blatantly obvious between say the 7D and 5D III, however it is a visible difference. The difference between a 1D X and 7D is larger. The difference between a 5D III or 1D X and 70D is even larger. Throw in a Nikon 24mp APS-C camera, and the difference is even larger.

This isn't rocket science, and we don't need to convolute the whole issue to favor one side of the argument or another. Smaller pixels == better. I don't think anyone would argue that the D800 has more resolution than the 5D III...the D800's pixels are 4.9µm, where as the 7D's pixels are 4.3µm, the 70D's are 4.15µm, and the D5300 has 3.9µm pixels. If no one denies that the D800 has more resolving power than a 5D III, then why are we debating whether a 7D, 70D, 7D II, D5300, or any other sensor with SMALLER pixels has more resolving power than a 5D III?  ::)

32
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:37:25 PM »
There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:
I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either.

Blend two of the frames with a layer mask and "paint" in either the sky or the shadows (depending on which frame you want to be the primary.)

Sure, that's an option. You guys are STILL missing the point. Manually blending with layer masks and whatnot is STILL MORE WORK. When you fill GIGS of CF cards every time you go out, having to do all that for even half the images is too much work. That's the entire point here. Yeah, there are options...but they all involve more work. The benefit of increased editing latitude is it reduces the workload.

33
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:43:29 PM »

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

I'd disagree that most people handhold in situations where you would need the added reach. In those situations, I believe most people are going to be using a tripod. I mean, that's what were talking about, here. Reach-limited situations where smaller pixels are going to show their advantage. Use of a tripod is a great normalizer...I shoot the 7D and 5D III on a tripod, with the same lens, in the same light. Usually, my entire goal is to maximize the lighting on my subject, get the right angle on my subject to minimize DR, etc. So I disagree that it's impossible to fully realize the advantage the 7D, or any other crop camera with high pixel count, has in real life.

I'd also disagree that you always have to be at a "non-optimal ISO" when using a cropped camera. I shot my 7D at ISO 400 all the time, and ISO 400 and 800 were the two optimal ISO settings for birds and wildlife. The whole notion that crepuscular hours are the only valid hours to shoot wildlife and birds in is also patently false. I have been photographing both for years now...my best photos are from the hours before sunset or after sunrise, when light is excellent, good color, and from an angle to the side of my subjects.

Your narrowing the parameters that are acceptable for this comparison as far as they can possibly be narrowed. Sure, full frame cameras have advantages. That doesn't change the fact that in common photographing situations, be it birds or wildlife during well-lit hours, sports with a well-lit field, macro with flash, whatever, "optimal" ISO settings, good shutter speeds, etc. are all viable use cases.

Cropped sensor cameras have two advantages. First, and foremost, is cost. They tend to be FAR more cost effective...someone in here already mentioned that they are eminently more capable of buying a $2,500 crop kit than a $25,000 FF kit that would be necessary to maximize the potential of a FF camera and ensure it kicks the crap out of FF in every situation (even reach limited...and I speak from experience, I've SPENT the near $30,000 on my kit, and I really had to in order to get the kind of focal length I needed to make the 5D III really surpass the 7D for distant birds...now it does...but, ouch! That's a LOT of money!!)

The other advantage is reach. Cropped sensors, and I'd argue newer cropped sensors are MUCH better at this than the 7D is these days, given how old it is, do indeed have improved resolving power. The 70D and pretty much any Nikon APS-C released in the last couple of years will demonstrate the benefit of crop-sensor reach better than the 7D can.

In any other situation...filling the frame more in a FF than a crop, when AF system counts more (until maybe the 7D II hits...if it really has a 65pt all-cross type AF system, it might, for a while, have a better AF system...generally FF AF systems are better), when you need to use REALLY high ISO settings, etc. Full frame obviously wins. But that's not the situation were debating here. Were debating reach-limited situations, where a tripod is highly likely, and if you know what your doing, with the ability to use an optimal ISO for either camera....

We don't need to convolute this to the point of absurdity.   :P

34
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:40:40 PM »
however I doubt 2EV DR would help unless you had two 2EV DR in highlight headroom.

This is a misnomer. There is no such thing as DR only in the highlights. Dynamic range defines the range from highlights to deepest usable shadows. You cannot have "highlight DR" or "two stops DR in highlight headroom"...that's just not how it works. The D800 gains dynamic range primarily by reducing read noise. That doesn't change the midtones or highlights, or for that matter even the brighter shadows. However, what it DOES allow you to do is underexpose to PRESERVE the highlights, and have relatively clean deep shadow detail that can be lifted and not be riddled with banding and color noise.

The D800 DOES give you the ability to recover 2EV worth of highlights...that's what shadow recovery is all about. Canon's shadows are "dirty", and they are dirty up to a level much higher than the D800's. If I try to recover a photo exposed to preserve the highlights with the 5D III, instead of workable detail, I get lots of muddy color-noise infested "detail", red vertical and some horizontal banding, and very heavy grain.

In this shot, the sky was pretty much impossible anyway. It was a backlit light overcast sky...there really isn't much detail there to start with. My biggest complaint was how the tree tops disappeared into the sky in the non-HDR. In my darkest frame, which was underexposed over two stops, the sky is visible, but it doesn't really look any different than what I've got in the HDR.

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:31:39 PM »

Do you see a detail difference between these two?  They were shot with the same aperture diameter.


What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200

I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF. With regards the question of comparing a crop capture to a FF one cropped whilst using AF and handholding I can't think of a more irrelevant post. Well done.

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison. It's impossible to get images that can be compared when doing it hand-held. I think that's purposely creating a scenario where a comparison CANNOT effectively be made. It is possible to defocus, and use AF to lock onto a subject, then trigger an exposure remotely (tethering or remote shutter release), shoot the same subject from the same location at the same distance, and get results that are eminently comparable.

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...as even if someone did gather some images using hand-held equipment, there is no logical, objective way of comparing them. It's an unnecessary requirement as long as the cameras are used identically, as long as AF is always employed before each shot, etc.

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all. I honestly don't know why we see different things, perhaps it is a monitor quality issue, perhaps it is a vision issue, perhaps it is simply psychological. I don't know, however even your very own example data, from where I stand, demonstrates the point: The 7D has a resolution edge over sensors with larger pixels. The 70D would have an even bigger edge...it isn't nearly as soft as the 7D was, it has better IQ overall (FWC of ~26ke- vs. 20ke-, an increase of over 30%!). If the 7D II hits the streets with the 24mp sensor that uses new technology, the resolution edge will increase even more for crop cameras. Hell, there are other brands that have 24mp APS-C cameras that use Sony Exmor and Toshiba sensors, both of which produce better IQ than Canon APS-C sensors...I'd love to see a comparison between them and any Canon FF.

I agree that Lee Jay's use of two APS-C cameras is invalid in this context...the request was for a comparison of FF and APS-C cameras. I have both a 5D III and a 7D. I'll see if I can find a decent enough real-world target that has a useful amount of detail that can be compared in the way you want. I have personally never claimed that the difference between a 7D and any Canon FF was "super significant" or "clear as day"...however the difference does exist, and it's enough to be meaningful. My 7D is handicapped compared to modern APS-C parts...there have been a good number of new APS-C sensors released since the days of the 7D, which has a stronger AA filter than pretty much any modern APS-C. Further, Canon APS-C sensors have fallen behind the competition just like their FF sensors, so comparing a Nikon APS-C camera to a Canon FF camera would demonstrate an even greater resolution advantage for the smaller sensor.

36
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 02:23:21 PM »


I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:


You can easily use PS HDR for moving water, just choose which image you want to use as the key frame, check the Remove Ghosts option and you are done. I just did a series of a fountain and even CS6 is freaky good at water.

Also, your V shaped sky is why I have never been a graduated ND filter fan, there is almost always something on the line that makes it not work, but, Background Erase tool is designed for this scenario, it takes seconds to effortlessly layer out your sky to a different exposure.

Not arguing against newer tech or suggesting what we have is enough, just pointing out that you are mistaken in your blending and post processing beliefs. Things have moved on a lot in the last few years and you clearly don't blend/HDR a lot.

While I'm happy to admit I haven't done HDR blends for lanscapes in a couple of years, I do know how to use the ghost removal tool. Here is an HDR of the one scene, five frame blend. I was able to recover a lot of the sky (it was overcast, so not much to see there, it's just not fully blown out white now). It's not perfect...I don't really care for how the tops of the trees blend into the sky...but there is only so much you can do, I guess (and that's probably true of using a D800 as well):



However, there are still artifacts in the water. Here are a couple crops of the single frame edited in LR:




And here are the same crops from the HDR:




There always seems to be something with HDR that just doesn't come out right. I've never done a background erase...I could try that, although what I'd replace it with I honestly don't know. I could spend time layering and manually blending in detail from a layer with the LR edits into the HDR image. The point is, I wouldn't have to spend all this extra time trying to correct a photo if I had more DR.

It's not a complicated argument, it's a pretty simple one. Sure, there are tools that can alleviate the limitations of Canon sensor DR...but it's more work. They don't always work. Give me ~14 stops of DR, better yet, give me ~16 stops of DR in a new camera with high resolution and a new 16-bit ADC, and most of these problems (no, I don't believe every single problem will go away, but most) will stop being problems.

To the point of the original question that started this topic: Does my argument here mean "The sensor makes the camera"? No, of course not. No one feature "makes the camera"...cameras are tools. Just like we use a hammer to pound nails, a screwdriver to screw in screws, and a saw to cut wood, different cameras are tools that solve different problems. Having a sensor with more DR means you have the option of buying a tool that solves certain problems. Personally, I would REALLY like to have a Canon camera that solved the problems I face whenever I head out to do landscape photography. I prefer the Canon system overall...I prefer most of their lenses (their wide angle lenses are a bit wanting, they really need to update the 16-35 f/2.8 L II...they could really use some better ultra wides in the 14 to 24 mm range overall, be they primes or zooms, that have significantly improved corner performance...as that's where Canon's wide to ultra wide angle lenses suffer), I prefer Canon ergonomics, I prefer Canon's AF system. However for certain kinds of photography, Canon does not really have an offering to fill that spot in your toolbox where lots of DR is needed and can be used. It doesn't matter if it's 14 stops, 16 stops, or 20 stops...more DR can always be used.

37
Landscape / Re: Waterscapes
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:36:10 PM »
A couple shots of North Fork Platt, off 285 in Colorado:







A couple more off CR-60, a back road turn to the north off 285 in Colorado:




38
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:14:22 PM »
There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:



I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:



Granted, these aren't "bad" shots...but neither is it what I wanted. I ended up re-framing to move the sky out of the frame:








39
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:07:43 PM »
With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.

This might be a case where Magic Lantern's dual iso mode (and auto ETTR) helps, at least that's how I've used it in challenging situations, letting auto ETTR expose iso 100 to not clip (or let them clip a bit) highlights and then have iso 800 or so help with shadows.

Magic Lantern's Dual-ISO uses line-skipping, and alternates which ISO is used for each line. You effectively get half the resolution. That's not a cost I'm willing to pay.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:06:41 PM »
with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers.

If you're looking for two more stops in the shadows, why are you bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots? Just bracket 2, one for the highlights and one two stops brighter. That would significantly mitigate the frustration of merging (fewer options for ghosting to occur, less labor, etc). You're still left dealing with the GND gradient, but that's true in both of your scenarios.

Have you ever tried to HDR merge just two or three frames when you have harsh highlight transitions? You end up with posterization and harsh transitions. The number of shots brackets isn't for more DR, it's to get a better blend around either the sun or very bright backlit clouds.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:37:05 AM »
How do those touting Exmor advantages demonstrate them?  They underexpose by 4-5 stops then push the shadows back up.  While there are valid reasons to do that, it's an 'advantage' that's totally useless to the vast majority of dSLR buyers.

A lot of people do just that, yes. However, I have been showing examples where underexposing was a necessity. I'm an "afternoon landscaper"...I can never get up early enough in the morning (which is really early, like 3:30am), in order to be able to drive out to the kinds of beautiful landscapes I want to photograph, but get there in time to set up and be ready to go by the time the rising sun lights the clouds afire with color.

So, I'm stuck taking my photos in the afternoon, when the setting sun washes the clouds in color. Problem is, all the mountains are to my west, same direction as the sun. Even if I keep the sun itself out of my frame, I'm still trying to photograph scenes with MASSIVE dynamic range. It isn't under-exposing if your trying to avoid clipping the highlights.

I was just out again today, trying to find some good mountains with colorful sunset clouds (largely a bust...the clouds just never got colorful). Anyway, it's always the same problem for me...every landscape has massive amounts of dynamic range. Even WITH stacking three GND filters (Lee 0.9, 0.6, and 0.3, or 3, 2, and 1 stop...that's SIX STOPS of GND filtration, and it still isn't enough!!) When you stack that much filtration, if the clouds are still bright enough, or if you have any kind of uneven horizon (usually the case with mountains), you end up with an inverse gradient to shadow...the mountains get darker and darker as they get higher.

I haven't done landscapes in a while...but nothing's changed now that I'm shooting them again with the 5D III. I'm not underexposing my shots by 4-5 stops....I'm exposing for the highlights. I always bracket, of course...but, all the problems still exist...the inverse mountain gradients when using GNDs, the massive amounts of scene DR.  These are real-world situations where I'm encountering too much DR for Canon sensors to handle, and it's proving to be a hell of a lot of work to merge an HDR that doesn't have posterization problems around the bright areas, doesn't have motion ghosting problems around wind-blown grass and trees, etc.

With two more stops of sensor DR, or to be more specific...with two more stops of shadow-lifting ability, with a sensor that has read noise in the deep shadows that has a nice random appearance without any banding of any kind, I could probably get away with my GND filters, some hefty shadow lifting, and one single shot...instead of bracketing 5, 7, 9 shots and having to deal with some frustrating HDR mergers. Things aren't quite as bad when I'm west facing east at sunset, or east facing west at sunrise...however, even in those circumstances, many of my older shots, taking with my 450D and 7D, still have problems with detail in the shadows...those cameras still have 11 stops or less of DR. Having two extra stops would have meant I could pull out much cleaner, more colorful detail from the shadows.

I'd really be curious to know, how many people run into the same situation? I've been spending a lot of time browsing through landscapes at 500px. There are a LOT of people who photograph landscapes. I think landscapes might be 500px's largest category.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:22:02 AM »
Quote
The 5D III can be used for landscapes. It's just a lot more work to clean up each image in post than I had expected it to be. Based on the raving reviews and everyone who said the 5D III noise was much better, I expected the 5D III low ISO noise to be a lot better than it is. Even a +3 stop shadow recovery is actually asking a bit much of the 5D III...you still get vertical banding when you do that, and the 5D III banding does not seem to clean up as well as the 7D did. I put off landscapes for a while, as I did not like dealing with the shadows on the 7D at ISO 100 (and, because the frame size in the 7D is just not large enough for the kinds of landscapes I like to do.) Now that I have the 5D III, it's still not capable of doing quite what I want to do...so I'm considering buying a D810 and a 14-24mm f/2.8.

If the 5D III is not cleaning up as well as your 7D, there is something very wrong with your 5D III, or there's a setting off in your software. I use Lightroom for processing, and with the most recent version, the difference between Canon FF and 7D detail recovery is massive.

Although I will say the shadow recovery on my 6D is quite good. Maybe not Nikon/Sony level, but certainly superior to APS-C.

The problem isn't noise in general. The 5D III photon shot noise cleans up VERY well, much better than my 7D. The noise I was referring to was the read noise. I knew it, theoretically, that it was worse on the 5D III...35e- vs. 8e- on the 7D. I was just surprised at how bad it really was. The 7D has vertical banding when lifted, but it was never quite so, intrusive, as with the 5D III. The 7D's banding was also VERY patterned, every eight pixel columns...so cleaning it up with Topaz DeNoise 5 was a lot more successful. The 5D III's banding has actually proven to be pretty difficult to clean up with DeNoise...and it does not seem to be very consistent...the banding changes a bit from frame to frame...as if it is a mix of fixed and semi-random patterns.

Anyway, lifting deep shadows out of the 7D was better, although cleaning up poisson noise was harder. Cleaning up poisson noise with the 5D III is easier, however it's ISO 100 and 200 read noise in the deep shadows is really, truly hideous.

Quote
I could wait for Canon to do something with the 5D IV...but, I don't really think they will. I think the 5D IV will arrive with the same old kind of read noise, they will still be losing two stops of dynamic range...and I don't think it's worth waiting any longer.

Yeah, I think it's clear Canon is going to sit tight with their conservative designs. More and more they are becoming like Toyota, competent and comfortable, but living off their peak of 2001-2005.

That would be a really sad outcome. Toyota is another example of a phenomenal company that has lost their edge, and isn't fairing as well in the modern environment. They used to make flawless cars, and were cranking out new car models faster than anyone. Now, they have had recalls recently, and their newer car designs aren't all that great.

I really hope Canon doesn't become another relic in a museum of companies that failed to compete, or worse, failed outright because they weren't competitive enough when and where it mattered. (I know that there is no market evidence yet to show a shift...however, I was looking around, and the last concrete DSLR market details we have are from 2010. We have a little bit from 2011 and 2012, but there is no real concrete, detailed, full market analysis from 2012 or 2013...so we really don't know how the fundamentals of the market, specifically the DSLR market, have fared since the introductions of the 5D III, D800, 1D X, etc.)

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 27, 2014, 01:15:30 PM »
The thing your missing is that detail buried in "shadow" isn't the problem. It's detail buried in READ NOISE that's the problem. "Shadows" extend for hundreds to thousands of levels...read noise usually only intrudes a dozen or so levels into the deepest of shadows. It's those very deep shadows that mark the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

The image you edited is more along the lines of this:

Your Nikon example is also more along those lines. Your sunflower shot with all the color noise is pitch black before being pushed. The bedroom scene, night scene, and sunflower shot without all the color noise are not pitch black. You can see some shadow detail in all of them.

Honest questions...not trying to pick a fight after the last thread...what RAW converter are you using on the sunflowers? What NR settings did you set in the converter itself (not in post)? Are you willing to provide the "pitch black" RAW file for others to try their hand at?

The Nikon image has pitch black shadows. It's the back sides of the bed, the back side of the desk, and the back side of the curtain. It was over a +5 stop lift, according to the guy who made the images.

As for my file, have at it:

http://1drv.ms/1vmTXXq

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 27, 2014, 12:10:09 AM »
@jrista: Spending hours in post sounds downright painful. If high dynamic range landscapes were my bread and butter, but my loyalty was to Canon, I'd be frustrated, too. Perhaps a good ND grad filter might be preferable to hours of post between now and when you either pick up a D800/810 or Canon unveils a comparable alternative?

Also, on the sunflowers -- one thing I've always loved about them at sunset is how because the petals aren't opaque, they glow when back-lit. Just my taste, but I would probably leave them in shadow enough that the petals that glow have contrast to those that are in shadow. That might give more overall contrast to the scene and help it feel more realistic. Just a thought. Glad to see you're out shooting...

I actually have a full set of ND Grads and the Lee filter system. I ended up with only my soft grads the day I took the sunflower shots, and only one weak hard grad (I'm not really sure where all my hard grads are...I've been doing landscapes so seldom lately, they could be anywhere). I don't like the way soft grads darken the background part of the foreground when used with harsh brightness transitions, and the 0.3 Hard GND was simply not enough to be worth hassling with the filter system. So I went with HDR instead (which is still not perfect itself, with so much DR in a scene, and a glaringly bright sun, it's difficult not to encounter problems with posterization and improper blending.)

The images I shared a while back were just quick and dirty preliminary edits...I've edited several more much more extensively now, and I've tweaked the contrast to do just that...allow the sunlight shining through some of the petals to show.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:42:49 PM »
and that means the split pixels it does not improve the file quality.

That's not what he was getting at. He's saying (I believe) they already have a finer process, and citing DPAF as proof, even though they currently are using it for something other than IQ.

Well, to be fair, he is still speculating about the 70D being made with a 180nm process. The 70D has only a few extra gates to handle the ability to read the two separate photodiodes in each pixel separately, as well as to bin them for a full pixel read. There isn't even a 10% increase in pixel FWC...if they had moved to 180nm, that means the border of wiring and transistors around each pixel would shrink by 320nm each side. That would lead to an increase in photodiode area of nearly 43%. Even assuming the independent read and binning logic takes up more space, I would still have expected more than a 9% increase in FWC if the 70D had moved to a 180nm process.
If they had done DPAF on the 500nM process, I would have expected the FWC to have dropped... yet, as you point out, it has slightly gone up...

of course, all this is speculation..... I have no inside information and am just guessing at a possible scenario....

I think it depends on whether they could fit all teh transistors in that 500nm border around the photodiodes or not. If there was room in that space not dedicated to photodiode area, then it's possible.

I wonder if they moved to some intermediary process first...320nm, 250nm?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 273