March 06, 2015, 11:08:33 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 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 334
991
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:25:59 PM »
....
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

I've been harping on about this for ages except that I use DxO as the measuring stick and you're using photos posted by people online. In both cases they amount to the same thing: Canon's sensor is a major issue.

And why are people still denying it? Because you and neuro have been long arguing that DxO's measurements are bad and so any discrepancy between the Nikon and Canon cameras is also flawed. But now you've stumbled across more pictures from real life photographers that show that whilst DxO numbers may leave something to desire, the difference they describe between the two brands is accurate.

You've made your bed in arguing that I (and anyone else) is an idiot for not thinking Canon's sensors are good enough. Use HDR, use better technique, real world doesn't need that many stops because of screen/print issues. Blah blah blah. On and on the two of you have argued about how Nikon's advantage isn't real.

And now you've woken up and discovered that the song you sang has put all of those around you to sleep and they don't want to wake up. Why should anyone feel sorry for you about facing denial from others posting here?

Maybe you'd like to print those words out on paper - or write them down - and post a video of you eating that paper :-D

Oh, don't get me wrong. I've never denied the editing latitude advantage of the D800. I've repeatedly calculated it on these forums. Also don't get me wrong here, I still have no trust of the majority of DXO's numbers. My desire for more editing latitude does NOT, and NEVER WILL, mean I ever have a change of heart about DXO. I have no problem with someone saying there is a 4x shadow tonality advantage for the D800. I do have a problem with someone saying there is an 8x shadow tonality advantage for the D800. That's 8x vs. 4x, a factor of two difference. Or a 100% margin of error. That is a LOT! DXO says the latter, which is only possible in one very specific circumstance using a very specific algorithm that does not reflect the reality of things. DXO lives in a dreamland, and I still choose to ignore their results.

You and I, Dilbert, have always butted heads over DXO. We probably always will. As for Exmor...well, I've been trying to shoot Sunflowers at sunset for a while...never quite succeeding with GNDs and barely succeeding with HDR...and after having seen dozens of real-world D800 photos shot strait into the sun. I'm just sick and tired of waiting for Canon to do something about their noise problem. If the D800 can do it, fine, I'll get a D800. Enough wrestling with ISO 100 noise (which, as I've said, is surprisingly bad on the 5D III, now that I've actually been using it for a few months...a lot worse than I expected, given how NOT so bad it is on the 7D, and how significantly better it is on the 6D...the 5D III is just....bleh....)

992
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:20:51 AM »
edit...
This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

Golly Jon, how'd you end up in this scrap?  ;)

I mentioned that I wanted more DR, and that I thought Canon was screwing themselves into the ground by ignoring the massive differences between themselves and...just about everyone else. I'm now a DRone. :P Guess that's all it takes.

Fine with me, though. I'll pick up a D810 and a 14-24 at some point for my landscapes (it's really tough, buying for both terrestrial and astro photography...you really pick and choose what to buy and when...so God only knows when I'll actually buy the darn thing.) I'm sure I'll be happy with it as well...it's not like landscapes need a kick-ass AF system, or even a meter. I won't be holding the camera, it'll be on a tripod. And so long as live view works, and so long as I can tether the darn thing and use my tablet as a giant live view screen...I won't have a major problem with the ergonomics or menu system.

I'm just tired of waiting for Canon to get off their ass and produce the camera I REALLY want with high DR and high megapixels. I'd MUCH prefer it be Canon, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Not within the next couple of years anyway.

here's one of my examples from 2 years ago that's a nice match for your sun-water example.
i could have pushed the foreground even lighter but then it looked phoney, not noisy.
Shots like this, and the extreme ease of post-processing, is why I dumped most of my Canon gear and went with Exmor-based goodies.  i like shooting into the sun!  I don't like spending a lot of time mucking around with NR software if I can easily avoid it.  ... Now I can, since 2012.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888

and here's another, the shadowed bank and tree-trunks were far too dark in the as-shot image to make the shot look interesting.  Was also the 14mm end of 14-24, FWIW.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9082.msg172770#msg172770

to steal the plot line from a commercial...

money spent on changing over, a few $k difference.
effort in learning the new system, mild to moderate

time and hassle avoided, priceless

Yeah, it's the ease of processing that is so appealing. I've done more than my fair share of NR. Hell, I've used some of the most advanced tools on earth for performing NR with astro and PixInsight. I really hate it. I spend so many freakin hours removing noise from my photos...and when you can take many dozens or hundreds of photos in a single outing, and so many of them are good compositionally and everything...having to spend time mucking around with banding and color blotches and whatnot just gets OLD. Really OLD. And it never measures up. There is still grain, there is still a loss of color fidelity, there is still a loss of detail (often a significant loss). I'm just tired of it.  I love the 5D III for wildlife, and assuming I can find any more birds this year (it's been a bit of a dead year for birds), I'm sure it will do more fine for birds as well. But landscapes? It's not really any better than the 5D II. It still has banding, and the color blotchiness seems even worse. Really not what I expected. I'll probably be doing a LOT of HDR until I find the right time to pick up a D800. (And even with HDR...that isn't perfect either...you still have to deal with blending artifacts, ghosting, you can't HDR merge anything with moving water in it, fast moving clouds tend to look funky in an HDR merge, etc. etc.)

Maybe the 5D IV will finally be the camera...but...I just don't have any confidence Canon is particularly interested in serving any market other than action. Action shooters are a huge market...but they aren't the sole market, and Canon definitely seems to be ignoring them for the time being.

993
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 04:10:01 AM »
These 5Ds must have been specially modified;

http://500px.com/photo/37646388/land-of-the-setting-sun-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/37251814/cape-arago-orcas-by-robert-bynum
http://500px.com/photo/69529953/the-golden-triangle-by-sairam-sundaresan
http://500px.com/photo/73747351/walt-whitman-+-freedom-pier-by-darren-loprinzi
http://500px.com/photo/59451838/baladrar-by-pedro-josé-benlloch-nieto

Well, tough to consider those single shots when the descriptions read like:

"Combination of three shots taken a few minutes apart. One exposure for the sky, one for the water and rocks, and another to capture the orcas." (Second link.)

The third one clearly has an artificial sun.

The fourth appears to use a GND, and also appears to have an artificial sun.

The fifth one also appears to use a GND, and still has very deep shadows in the foreground.

The only one there that seems to be a legit single shot is the first one.


Don't get me wrong. They are all excellent photos, wonderful pieces of art. However, they still aren't the same as the D800 photos. They aren't showing off the capabilities of having massive dynamic range.

994
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:23:01 AM »
@jrista; when you e mail Canon demanding that they improve their sensor's IQ be sure to include those 500px images as an example of what the D800 and do  ;)

I'll be sure to. Although I'm quite certain Canon knows about their own limitations. I'm not worried they don't know. I'm frustrated by the fact that they haven't done anything about it, because I am sure they know. Worse, given the patents they've been granted recently, they seem to have technology that would solve the problem (and have had it for years, most of the filing dates were at least a couple years ago)...they just aren't using it.

995
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 03:05:32 AM »
I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

You're now showing your inexperience in post processing Jon. You're assuming that these guys would be using HDR software if they were indeed HDR. In fact your whole argument for them being single exposure shots is based on the inclusion of EXIF, instead of using your eyes.

Keep posting images like these as proof of the D800s superior DR. You gave me a good laugh this morning.  ;D

I'm glad you had a good laugh, however, my "whole" argument was actually based on more than just EXIF data. My "whole" argument included the fact that none of these images show the kind of cloud or water artifacts that occur with HDR as well. I mean, YOU GUYS YOURSELVES, specifically Neuro, have made that very argument...that HDR is useless when water is present, because you get ghosting. Did you even look at any of the images I linked? If so, then who is showing their ignorance about post-processing now?

You guys can deny it as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. It is possible to capture the sun, without it being totally blown, and still recover the foreground with very low noise (and not a hint of banding or other unsightly noise characteristics), in a single shot with a D800. I did not believe it was possible a couple years ago (when the only real example of it was Mikael posting incredibly crappy photos of god only knows what trying to prove it here on CR), but there are now FAR too many examples of this very thing being done with the D800 in countless photos posted online. Not just examples, but artistic photographs.

This has nothing to do with my ability to post process a photo, or recognize how one was processed. It has everything to do with denial. :P There is a MASSIVE difference in editing latitude between a D800 and a 5D III, or any other Canon camera. MASSIVE. It's two stops. That means FOUR TIMES as much recoverable shadow data is recorded in a D800 RAW file. If you guys really can't see the difference, can't recognize the facts when they are sitting right in front of your face...well, it's no wonder no one here is interested in demanding that Canon do something about their sensor technology. No one even understands WHY they would ask for such a think in the first place, because they are ignorant of the reality of the difference between a Canon sensor and an Exmor.

This has NOTHING to do with DXO here, BTW. Just to be very clear. This has everything to do with WHAT PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ACHIEVING IN REAL LIFEa with the D800. I posted actual real world, artistic photographic examples, not some lab test of a step wedge or a bunch of numbers on paper (things you guys are often ragging on me about) and you guys are STILL denying it. Well...I guess what they say is true. Denial is the most predictable of human behaviors...

996
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 02:04:43 AM »
What, exactly, is the calculation you use to determine Photographic DR? Or is the calculation simply: "Shoot a step wedge and judge visually whether you have X stops or Y stops of DR?"

That's generally good enough, yes, though you're welcome to evaluate the shot with instruments.

There is not a magic formula which allows you to translate engineering SNR for a sensel into photographic dynamic range for an entire digital camera. That seems to be what you are looking for and it does not exist. There are multiple reasons for this, not the least of which is that photographic DR is evaluated for a 2 dimensional light sensitive material with many imaging elements (sensels or grains), and is not based on a single element. If you applied an "engineering" definition of DR, or SNR, to photographic film you would conclude it has 1 stop because at the level of a single grain you would find either silver or clear base and nothing in between. (Ironic that digital cameras are analog at the sensel and film is "digital" at the grain.)

There are other reasons, but the point is looking at sensel SNR...even though it's related...gives a false impression. But just because there is no simple formula to translate sensel SNR into DR does not mean that DR is arbitrary or subjective.

Quote
In every single one of those pages you linked, including the book "The Negative" by Ansel (which I own, BTW), no one actually DEFINES what "Photographic DR" is.

Luminance range between black and white. (For the nth time.)

As for Ken Rockwell: "In photography, dynamic range is the difference between the lightest light and darkest dark which can be seen in a photo." Bingo.

Quote
I do not believe there is a single objective definition of Photographic DR.

Saying this after the references I've provided is...embarrassing. You're arguing to argue, not discussing to learn.

Quote
It's just an arbitrary term, and it seems to be redefined at will.

Every source I linked has the same definition even if they call it by another name (i.e. luminance range). I'm not aware of any other definition in photography.

Quote
I am calling into question the validity of using the old film-based Zone system to describe dynamic range in digital image sensors. Film had no readout system! In film, dynamic range was limited only by the amount of grain, which means it effectively behaved like an "ideal sensor"...the only source of noise was photon shot noise, inherent in the image resolved by the lens itself.

Grain irregularity was itself noise.

I cut a lot from your post where you're theorizing. Observe, then theorize.

The definition is incomplete and inconsistent. Dynamic range is the "range from the lowest level to the brightest level". That is an arbitrary definition. Technically speaking, the lowest level in every sensor is black, or ZERO. By EVERY definition of dynamic range, the range from zero to any number is INFINITY. So you are basically arguing that Canon sensors have infinite dynamic range...which is obviously false.

You have to define what the lowest level is. So far, you, and everyone else who offers some description of "Photographic DR", has not defined how you determine the lowest level, from which  you can then define a range from that to the white point.

The lowest level is the noise floor, which in a digital sensor, is defined by the RMS of read noise. Sure, you can use NR algorithms to reduce the noise of images from Canon cameras. You can also use NR algorithms to reduce the noise in images from any other camera. You don't NEED to use NR to reduce the noise from cameras with Exmor sensors at ISO 100 (and 200)...and THAT is the point I'm trying to make. You can spend hours carefully reducing the noise present in a Canon image, however no matte how perfect your NR, it's still never going to be as good as a D800/D810/D600 image. At the same time, you could spend a few minutes reducing the noise present in a D800 image, and increase the gap again.

It doesn't really matter how you slice it. Less read noise means more dynamic range, but more usefully, it means more editing latitude. A lot more editing latitude. It really doesn't necessarily mean there is any difference whatsoever in noise levels or quality in the midtones through highlights. That's purely photon shot noise, unaffected by read noise, so there won't be any difference. The key here is the fact that less read noise means cleaner, more recoverable shadows. And it means you can shoot directly into the sun, not completely blow the sun out, and STILL recover the foreground detail without any issues with noise. Show me any Canon camera that can do that in a single shot. Even with NR, show me something that can lift the foreground shadows of a photo shot directly into the sun by five or six stops.

I actually have some examples of my own, since I was just out shooting sunflowers, with the sun behind them as it set. Soon as I get them imported, I'll share some examples...putting my 5D III in the best light possible, and also trying to do the same thing as a D800 can do...expose for the sun, and lift the shadows to recover all the detail in the foreground. I'll even run it all through DeNoise 5, and it still won't be as good.


997
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 01:37:22 AM »
I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

What on Earth makes you think that's not an exposure blend / HDR? (It doesn't appear to be GND.) I would also guess the "sunburst" is artificial or enhanced, though I could be wrong on that.

Quote
I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800.

That's because you can't do it in a single frame unless the sun is heavily masked by something (fog; GND), which doesn't appear to be the case here. Not unless you have a DSLR with a 20+ stop NASA sensor.

Ahh. So, your happy to claim Canon cameras have the same DR as cameras with Exmor sensors, however when presented with evidence to the contrary, you switch to incredulity? Here are a few more examples of people shooting directly into the sun with a D800, and still having bright, noiseless foreground detail:

http://500px.com/photo/77205501/at%C3%A9-ao-fim-by-alvaro-roxo
http://500px.com/photo/79771739/red-sunset-by-giulio-annibali
http://500px.com/photo/37222976/rise-and-shine-by-justin-sheely
http://500px.com/photo/66068697/cave-arch-by-dustin-lefevre
http://500px.com/photo/48537232/hot-bath-by-max-rive
http://500px.com/photo/29165673/bright-%7C-arches-by-ali-erturk
http://500px.com/photo/74914783/field-of-gold-dreams-by-ian-helling-pga
http://500px.com/photo/52463648/68-degrees-north-by-stian-klo
http://500px.com/photo/79520935/sunset-in-bergen-by-attilio-ruffo
http://500px.com/photo/11036915/sweet-reality-%7C-cohasset-ma-by-lorenzo-montezemolo
http://500px.com/photo/35611930/the-rock-by-roger-raad
http://500px.com/photo/39665312/the-confluence-by-sapna-reddy
http://500px.com/photo/52853482/untitled-by-siewlam-wong

Oh, and um, one of the hallmarks of HDR images is they lack any kind of EXIF metadata when uploaded to photo sites like 500px. Any time you DO have EXIF, it pretty much guarantees that the image is a single shot. Another indication is a complete lack of any kind of funky layering or movement in clouds...even when doing quick successive shots with HDR, there is always cloud movement. Another BIG indicator of a single shot vs. HDR is the complete lack of water motion or funky water layering when exposure time is less than 1s (at and above 1s, your going to get a slight amount of water motion, as expected).

So, this time around, I've linked a bunch of D800 single-frame shots that include clouds AND water...none of which exhibit any of the artifacts of HDR processing.

Still think Canon sensors have the same kind of dynamic range as Exmor?  :P

998
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 25, 2014, 12:03:49 AM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)

Are you sure it is sunflowers, I thought they were growing other stuff in CO these days :)

Oh dear god. :P When will it stop!! :D

Every time, whether it's "growing" or anything else that can be related to weed, someone makes a joke about it these days. :p Guess we asked for it.

BTW, never partaken of the stuff myself, and I voted to tax the crap put of it. :)

999
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 11:58:42 PM »
It's a simple question. Do you NOT want to have better IQ across the board? Truly? I mean, technology PROGRESSES. So, if you are honestly telling me that you do NOT want better top to bottom sensor IQ....

Every single Canon ILC I have purchased has had better IQ then the camera I purchased before it. The next Canon camera will as well. To say nothing of their lens advancements. As for DR,

Not that I'm hostile to other brands. Canon does not have a FF MILC so I imagine a Sony A7 is in my future.

The sad thing here is, despite my asking you for an objective definition of photographic Dr, not one single thing you have said in this entire thread has been anything but subjective. Do you not see the problem with that? (Honest question.)

1000
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:53:20 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)
+1
For me it was a canoe, a storm case of gear, egrets, herons, ducks, geese, turtles, and a very elusive kingfisher. A day well spent!

Absolutely!

1001
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:43:57 PM »
Mmm. Double feature...brewing T-storm off in the distance...and the milky way. All playing nice together over a field of sunflowers.  ;D  ;D  ;D

1002
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 10:27:12 PM »
So many things I would love to respond to. However, I'm where I think everyone in this thread should be right now: out doing photography. I am currently at Kiowa-Bennett Rd. and Hwy 79...i just finished photographing a field of sunflowers and am preparing to try and photograph the milky way (although we'll se how that goes...I'm just east of DIA...).

I left this debate twice yesterday to scout photography spots like this one. I left it again today to actually do photography. I encourage everyone not to get so wrapped up in the debate, as important as it may be to some of us, that they forget to do the thing with their gear that we all debate about anyway. :P

Saggitairius, Scorpius, Cygnus and more beckon...catch you chums later.  ::)

1003
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:58:45 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Having better tech is useful, but is it always required?

Canon has to balance their investment and return across multiple lines within their camera business, and to be successful they're not always going to change at the pace we want. That they have the tech via patents but chose not yet to implement it means the business case does not stack up in terms of the cost of producing it vs the extra revenue it will bring.

Where I think you have to be careful Jrista is that you have stated that other than for astro photography, most of your shots are at higher ISO where Canon is not lagging behind. Your shots demonstrate that you can take good pictures. Yet you seem to have completely lost your rag with Canon (not anyone here) because they chose still not to implement their better tech.

Being passionate, voicing the need for change is fine. Appearing to suggest that Canon needs to adapt their ways or they will be the next dinosaur is somewhat out of character for you.

Will Canon be here in 10 years time? Not sure. The photography market is under threat because there is a high percentage of the population who are happy with the quality from their smartphones. That's hit revenues quite a bit, couple with a global recession. Many companies, including Canon, are being more cautious.

Smaller companies are always less risk adverse... They have less to lose, and everything to gain. Nikon chose to side with another company who had nothing to lose, Sony. And the competition is great as a result. Ditto mirror less. More choice is good. Will Nikon survive their decision better than Canon? I suspect Sony will buy them in a few years time as they struggle to adapt.

I'm just not convinced personally that there is sufficient gain by moving to Nikon or Sony. Your mileage may differ. A friend of mine sold his 5d mk iii and probably about 10k euros of lenses, retaining his 600mm and 7d. He swapped to Fuji, so it can be done....

Like I said, your contribution to explaining a lot of the tech here has been welcome. I would welcome improvements in Canon sensor, sure would.

First, I totally agree...I think at some point Sony will probably buy Nikon. There is obviously something wrong with Nikon's strategy. It isn't the technology...so it's something else. I myself see them as being schizophrenic, they make odd business decisions and seem to waste money on pointless things that are unlikely to recoup all the R&D costs, let alone make them money.

There are some out there who think that in a few years time, the only three players left in the ILC market will be Canon, Nikon and Sony, and possibly just Canon and Sony. The rest will either merge, fold, or enter the smartphone camera market in one way or another (kind of like Sony's QX line.) I don't know, I think more companies will ally with Sony in one way or another, use their sensors. Sony may scoop a couple of them up. In the end, there may well indeed end up being only three major players in the ILC market.

Just to be clear, I have no intention of "switching" brands. If I do anything, it will be adding another brand to my kit. There are still problems with that. I despise the fact that Sony chose a lossy "raw" format...it doesn't even qualify to be called RAW since it's lossy. I'd have an A7r already if not for that. I also have never lied about my opinion of Nikon ergonomics. So, it's not an ideal situation. However...for my landscape photography...which, how often have you seen me share landscapes? Rarely. :P I have never cared for the editing latitude of my Canon files at low ISO. Even with good NR, you still have to pick some balance between shadow detail and shadow noise. I'm quite good with Topaz DeNoise 5, it is a very effective program. But even that still eats detail for breakfast if you really push the NR far enough that Canon shadows look like Exmor shadows.

My high ISO photography is great, I'm happy with it. I have no doubt I still have years of learning left for birds and wildlife, my work doesn't even compare to the pros. However, my low ISO photography? I've never been satisfied with it. I have some decent shots, but, eh. I figured Canon would have had a high DR part out by now, so I didn't let it bother me. But now it seems Canon is content with what they have...for whatever reasons....and I'm not. I don't like fighting with noise in the shadows. I don't like having to obliterate detail to clean my landscape shadows up. I just don't like it...never have. I was patient, I waited. I'm tired of waiting. I wait so often, wait on people, companies, technology.

I am personally convinced that the D800 or D810 could improve my landscape photography. Over the last couple of years, I've seen too many incredible photos on 500px and 1x that demonstrated the incredible power of having two additional stops of DR/Editing Latitude. This one in particular is just mind blowing...I'd LOVE to see anyone try to replicate that with a 5D III. I'd honestly bet good money it's impossible:

http://500px.com/photo/74066923/if-2-by-zsolt-kiss

The sun is fully realized there...and the foreground detail is, quite detailed. I think that's an amazing shot. I've tried shooting into the sun before with my Canon cameras. I'm fully and well versed in ETTR, I know exactly how to use it. I've used GND filters. I've NEVER been able to actually do what this photographer did with a D800. That's a scene with tons of DR....from deep shadows behind the rock and mountain, to the sun itself (which isn't blown in any way that I can see.) As far as I can tell, that was an f/22, 1s ISO 100 shot. I would LOVE to be able to do that!

As much as we, all being Canon fans, want to defend the company...they are behind. And they are falling farther and farther behind. I'm not joking when I say that Canon sensor technology is archaic. It really, sadly, is. If the 7D II gets a minimal evolutionary update to the 70D sensor...then, just as sad, that fact remains true. That disappoints me.

1004
Technical Support / Re: Another my Stupid question = Sensor Sizes
« on: August 24, 2014, 07:36:02 PM »
Quote
Pixel size is irrelevant. SNR, and therefor dynamic range (assuming you have no other source of noise than what is inherent to the image signal itself) and noise are ultimately relative to total sensor area. That's it.

I think I'm finally seeing how things are getting confused. One needs to fix the output size & pixel count. Then the SNR of each output pixel is independant of the sensor pixel size---for a fixed sensor area. The SNR of each sensor pixel varies with the size of the sensor pixel, but the output pixel SNR does not. If the output is being displayed in a 1500x1000 window (on, say, a 90 dpi display), then a full frame sensor of 1500x1000 pixels will produce the same result as a 3000x2000 pixel full frame sensor. The individual pixels of the latter sensor will have lower SNR, but you'll be averaging 4 pixels to produce each output pixel and end up with the same SNR. So it all washes out. But this brings us back to the earlier question: Why isn't the finest pixel size used across all sensor sizes, since the effect of a larger pixel can be gained by downsampling (but the reverse cannot)? I assume that the cost of the electronics and/or lower yield with finer features is the reason?

First, you are correct, we needed a 100mm f/5.6 lens for the larger sensor. Was stuck on the equivalence article, where the differences in sensor sizes were factor of two, rather than factor of two (I was mostly quoting). In your particular scenario, since the sensors differ in area by a factor of four, then we do indeed need two stops less light with the longer lens/larger sensor to get an equivalent result.

As for the above, now you got it. It has to do with relative OUTPUT size. It doesn't really matter what size pixels you use if all you ever do is sample your images to 1920x1080 size for viewing on line on computer screens. However, total sensor area DOES matter, for the same framing, a larger sensor will produce a better 1920x1080 pixel image than a smaller sensor.

As for your question:

The individual pixels of the latter sensor will have lower SNR, but you'll be averaging 4 pixels to produce each output pixel and end up with the same SNR. So it all washes out. But this brings us back to the earlier question: Why isn't the finest pixel size used across all sensor sizes, since the effect of a larger pixel can be gained by downsampling (but the reverse cannot)? I assume that the cost of the electronics and/or lower yield with finer features is the reason?

Smaller pixels are more difficult to manufacture. I don't exactly know where the threshold is...it's probably easy to compute. But at some point fill factor, or the ratio of light-sensitive photodiode area vs. total sensor area (the difference of which is used by readout logic and wiring), will become small enough that smaller pixels consistently perform worse than larger pixels. The primary solution for manufacturers that do make sensors with very small pixels (usually less than two microns) is BSI, or Back-Side Illuminated sensors (sometimes just BI, Back-Illuminated). Manufacturing BSI sensors is quite a bit more difficult than FSI sensors. With BSI, the entire sensor surface is effectively photodiodes. There are literally no gaps, only microlenses and CFA. The other side has all the transistors and wiring. The problem with these sensors is they tend to be fragile. Usually, FSI sensor designs have a pretty thick silicon substrate, but when you etch both sides the substrate becomes quite thin. It is easier to manufacture small sensors with BSI designs than it is to manufacture really large sensors with BSI designs. As such, APS-C and FF sensors are FSI these days.

At some point I suspect manufacturers will start pushing the pixel size envelope, and they will figure out a way to stabilize BSI sensor designs so they can be used for larger form factors. I doubt Canon will be the one to figure out the solution. At the moment, some of the patents that Omnivision has filed seem to have to do with making sensors more rigid and less fragile, so they may be the first to find a solution. If/when someone DOES figure out how to make a stable BSI design for larger form factors, I'm sure we will see another quantum leap in full frame sensor resolution. I wouldn't be surprised to see pixels in the 3µm or smaller range on a full frame sensor. Since the light-sensitive surface would effectively have 100% or nearly 100% fill factor, such a sensor should exhibit "ideal" characteristics...fill factor wouldn't be an issue, only output magnification would matter.

1005
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 24, 2014, 06:24:56 PM »
@Famateur: Because of the fact that the sky was overcast, that dispersed a lot of the light, resulting a higher diffuse ambient level. The dynamic range of the scene was within the dynamic range of the sensor. A scene that was directly lit by the sun would actually have had higher dynamic range, and actually posed a greater problem for lifting the shadows.

Given the unprocessed version of your image, I would offer that you could have underexposed slightly more, and avoided the pinkish/purple toning that occurred when you recovered the highlights in the clouds. You might have had slightly more noise in the foreground, but I think that would ultimately be preferable to the color grading issues in the clouds.

Agreed on both points. :)

The first thing I noticed when I opened the file was that, despite the underexposure, I still managed to burn some of the sky. Hard to see on an LCD outside, but what can you do. With wife and kids anxious to move on, no time to fiddle with enabling highlight alert. I'll see if I can desaturate that patch of pinkish clouds with a local brush...

Aye, I understand. That is one of the areas where having more DR can be very useful. It has nothing to do with being a novice or not, knowing how to choose exposure or not. Sometimes the tools in our hands don't tell us everything. For example, JPEG thumbnails are usually used to generate the histogram shown on the camera, and to determine when to show "blinkies" that indicate blown highlights when previewing images. Use of JPEG results in highly inaccurate feedback. However, sometimes, when your on the run, with the family, wouldn't it be really nice to be able to dial in a darker exposure than you think you could probably get away with...and just not have to worry that doing so will affect your IQ?

Two additional stops of editing latitude would allow that. It's just one of the things it can allow for. I don't think it's an invalid reason because it helps you continue to create better photography when your in a rush. There can't really be any bad reasons for having better technology. At the same time, having an additional two stops of editing latitude means if that arch WAS directly and brightly lit by the sun...you could have still gotten a photo and been able to extract whatever amount of detail you wanted to from the shadows, without running into nasty color noise, banding, etc.



Based on the tone around here, I can only assume the following:

Just because you used a camera with a better sensor to get either shot, one with diffuse lighting vs. one with direct lighting, and were able to lift the shadows more, would likely get you labeled either as a total noob who doesn't know how to expose, or a poser who isn't a "real" photographer who takes on the challenge of creating a real work of art with limited equipment...

Seriously...  ::)

Pages: 1 ... 65 66 [67] 68 69 ... 334