September 02, 2014, 12:26:15 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 - mb66energy

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24
Software & Accessories / Re: Normal RAW vs Dual ISO Raw Example Video
« on: July 17, 2013, 12:28:18 PM »
The Dual ISO pics look somewhat plasticky and lacking in detail, like they'd undergone pretty heavy NR. Looks like a hefty price for lower noise  :-\

Yes, a lot of things in the image look much cleaner but ... sometimes textures are "clean" and lock plasticky in reality. I miss some cleanliness in a lot of images I make with the 40D which has quite good IQ just in comparison to current models.

For me it looks naturally smooth and I would like to have the option for such a processing of stills -  might be a reason to buy a 7D.

It would be great to have a photograph for comparison ... or the couch ...

Lenses / Re: 400mm f5.6 - Why ?
« on: July 17, 2013, 08:59:14 AM »
CarlTN, thanks for your comments!

And for the info about astrophotography:
  * I never heard that this is a common "method" for good images - but now I remember a talk about
     an mathematical method called "triple correlation" to suppress atmosphere effects  (the abstract is helpful as
     general information)
     They used a sequence of 100 or 1000 images and analyzed the set to gain Hubble-like resolution
     without traveling into an orbit ;-)
  * I never kept in mind during my video filming about the missing mirror motion - but that is a
     good argument. Especially with my 25 year old Manfrotto 190 Pro tripod!
     (Now I have a hangup between 190cxpro3 and 055cxpro3 but I think after realizing 4000mm
     after your comments I will tend to the sturdier 055cxpro3!)


Lenses / Re: 400mm f5.6 - Why ?
« on: July 16, 2013, 10:03:18 AM »
Been pondering my long tele options over the last few months...  A 100-400mm is looking very likely, but I'm left pondering, why would anyone but the 400mm f5.6 prime ?

Serious question, what does it offer other than being very slightly cheaper and lighter ?

Just another list of pro's for the 5.6/400 for ME:
  * IQ (sharpness, contrast) because I want to use it with my 2x TC (mark 1)
  * contralight flare rejection (assumed to be better due to the low number of lens elements)
  * sturdy construction
  * fast reliable AF
  * built in lens hood
  * I like the idea of a 24mm - 40/50mm - 100mm - 200mm - 400mm prime set since I startet photographing

The prime won against the 100-400 zoom because I really like shooting "perfect" primes. The 70-200 4.0 is an exception because it delivers excellent IQ (except direct contralight situations).

Sometimes I missed the flexibility of a 100-400 zoom because I like to walk with ONE lens / body.

Another point about sharpness/resolution: Under real world conditions the excellent IQ of the prime goes down to roughly 1 MPix when you do landscape photography - due to shimmering atmosphere.

If I were NOW in the situation to decide between the 5.6 400 and the 100-400 I would perhaps wait - if possible - for the mark ii version of the zoom. If it has similar IQ like the prime, a 4x IS system and sells for 2.5 kEuro it would be my choice.

Just my 2ct - Michael

PS: An example of 5.6/400 with 2x TC (mark i) from an HD video with 3x zoom (EOS 600D, 1 sensor pixel = 1 image pixel), effective focal lenght is roughly 4000 mm.

Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 15, 2013, 04:51:02 AM »
The Nikon 500mm rules @ f/32 in terms of actuance:
This might lead to a higher summed up score because DxO produces the score from data over the whole range. If this is NOT WEIGHTED with typical use scenarios ... this gives misleading scores while the measurements are correct AND helpful.

This might explain why Canons and Nikons 4/500 have the same scores - I would choose Canon's lens because it should deliver cleaner results @ f/4-f/8 - the typical f-stops I would use.

I'd like to ask where DxOMark states the Score is summed over the whole range...because instead, I read: "DxOMark Score corresponds to an optimal focal length/aperture combination. The score corresponds to the quantity of information that can be captured by the camera. Each focal length/aperture combination provides a numerical value. The highest value is the DxOMark Score.". They're saying the score is based on the one best focal length/aperture combo. They indicate that right next to their Score, and for all three lenses that optimum is 500mm f/4.

Sorry, but I believe actuance at f/32 is irrelevant to the Scores, which are still BS...

I do not find the text I BELIEVE I have read - perhaps I should read english texts more carefully because it isn't my mother language. Perhaps I have misread the explanation of the METRIC tests which averages the results of different FOCAL LENGTHS - not different apertures.
Sorry for that.

Now I have seen the Use Case Scores (Mid-Light-Score) - whatever that is (clicking on the "?" doesn't provide information):
Nikon 48  @f/5.6
Canon 48  @f/4.0
Sony 44  @f/4.0
perhaps that is a weighted version of scoring ...

But perhaps you are right: The scores ARE BS ...

Lenses / Re: Dxo tests canon/nikon/sony 500mm's
« on: July 13, 2013, 01:41:05 PM »
The Nikon 500mm rules @ f/32 in terms of actuance:

This might lead to a higher summed up score because DxO produces the score from data over the whole range. If this is NOT WEIGHTED with typical use scenarios ... this gives misleading scores while the measurements are correct AND helpful.

This might explain why Canons and Nikons 4/500 have the same scores - I would choose Canon's lens because it should deliver cleaner results @ f/4-f/8 - the typical f-stops I would use.

Lenses / Re: EF-M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS STM Not Coming to the USA
« on: July 13, 2013, 04:52:25 AM »
Where are the benefits of global trade ? Gone ?

I tried to find a german dealer who sells the EOS M with the 22mm - not possible, just a set which includes the Adapter and the flash for 630 EUR (~800 $). I thought about ordering the 299$-Offer from BH Photo (470 $ with taxes and delivery) resulting in 370 EUR final price. Next day the offer was gone ...
A large online dealer with amazing product palettes online doesn't deliver from US to Germany - weird things.

Now they wan't sell the 11-22 in US ? As many of you mentioned this is a very attractive lens because it is much smaller than alternatives and might show extraordinary IQ (we have to wait for real world samples).

Now it is easier to send asparagus for 3 $ by plane for 10000 kilometers - compared to a 300 $ lens which has the same weight/volume and is much easier to store ....?!

Canon General / Re: Lost inspiration
« on: July 11, 2013, 08:00:08 AM »
Dear HobbyShooter, I have these problems from time to time - two or three times a year. Since I restartet photography in 2001 with a Powershot G2. The same questions akways: What a waste of money for the tools and will I ever reenter into photography.

Now I have a 6-week holiday but broken a leg shortly before my holiday. I planned to  do a lot of walking and photographing - but that has to wait now.

Photography is IMO not only taking the photo but it's also
  - previsualizing photographic ideas/setups
  - postprocessing in the classical sense: "virtual darkroom"
  - reflecting what I have photographed in the last months
  - reading about photography/enjoying other people's work.

A book which helped me to overcome a lot of frustration was
"The Art of Photography" from Broce Barnbaum, published in rockynook
Barnbaum is IMO open minded so he doesn't teach step-by-step
procedures for different subjects but he tries to help opening
YOUR ideas and gives HINTS how to put your package of ideas,
ideals, etc. into a photograph.
I read in the book from time to time and try his ideas on my
photographing or older photographs.

Another thing which helped me was to have a camera with me
- very often just 1 40D with the 40mm OR the 100mm macro.
Very versatile lenses and ... having just one tool at hand
is light wight but unleashes a lot of creativity ...

So: Good luck - Michael

EOS Bodies / Re: The Next EOS M Camera(s) [CR1]
« on: July 08, 2013, 05:03:15 AM »

I just posted a few hours ago in the $299 EOS thread that it seemed like a silly purchase; since Canon would likely be replacing it with a dual-pixel AF markII version.

I guess I was spot on with that prediction.


Yes and no - the lens alone is roughly 200 $ / EUR - so you get a fully functional body with battery for 100 bucks! I would be happy if I would see this offer in germany. And I think a dual pixel AF version will be offered as body only version!

Software & Accessories / Re: Any suggestion about back pack?
« on: July 08, 2013, 03:39:07 AM »
Funny thing - your description reflects my fight against/with back packs and two bodies very well. I haven't found a perfect solution for that problem.

Smaller solution:
An intermediate solution is the Loewe Pro Runner 200AW which is very small but can hold two bodies and some lenses very well. I had to distribute the compartment seperators in an inconventional way to make space for
* 40D with 70-200 4.0
* 40D with 10-22
The advantage is that this backpack is small and it is easier to handle the large "aperture" without dropping devices.

Larger solution:
Another idea is to buy a so called "Lastenkraxe" (german) - a back pack base consisting of a frame of aluminum tubing and an anatomically shaped support, here a link to photo/tech specs in english:
Perhaps it is a good idea to equip the frame with two camera bags, the tripod and a bag for food/water/clothing. The main advantage - IMO - is the fact that the backpack stands on the ground.
I planned to buy one and try it during some light trecking but due to a broken leg I postponed to check that solution.

Sorry for not delivering the perfect solution but I still think it doesn't exist for "Two body shooters".
Best - Michael

EOS Bodies / Re: Why a high MP camera?
« on: July 07, 2013, 04:55:08 AM »
Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?

(1) Extreme aspect ratios (cinemascope, ca. 2.35:1 or square)
     1-Shot-panoramas with moving objects/subjects
(2) Large prints for the wall
(3) Strange light sources (fireworks, Neon/LED light, sunsets) which will profit from a 2x2 binning
     to sum up R-G-G-B in one image pixel

I am shure that 12 MPix are sufficient for 90 % of the MY images, I really have to learn to master the 10MPix of my 40D.

But I dream about a 48 MPix FF camera with a RAW mode (or DPP "special buttons)) to calculate clean 24MPix and ultraclean 12MPix images.

But if it is possible to acquire more data I would prefer to use it. Consolidation of the 48MPix information into a 12MPix .cr2 data file with DPP or another post processing tool would be great: If 12MPix are sufficient, why store/operate with 48MPix files? On the other hand, if I have a good image where 48MPix are helpful ... it would be great to store the full information.

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« on: July 06, 2013, 04:52:36 AM »

 Makes me wonder if I should go back to Canon's program, although I like many features in Lightroom better.

Thanks for starting this thread - it is really helpful for me because I am in the process of decision between LR (or DxO or ...). A very good starting point to evaluate the different software solutions!

Best - Michael

Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom vs. DPP
« on: July 06, 2013, 04:20:54 AM »
Thanks D. !  I was just playing around and there is a lot more there than I realized.  That's great.

Is it standard practice to apply some sharpening to photos.  I'm pretty happy with my 6D/300F2.8II results so should they be left as is?  What is considered a typical treatment?


As far as I know the anti aliasing filters of typical cameras (6d included) "smear" ultrafine detail to avoid interferences with the subject and the pixel pattern. A slight softness in the images is the result.

I have observed that I get the best results in DPP  with
  Luminance and Chrominance Noise Reduction set to ZERO
  Sharpness set to THREE and using the standard sharpening method (never unsharp mask)
I speak about non-spectacluar lenses like the shorty 40 or the f/2.0 100 which deliver high percepted sharpness comparable with your lens. Camera is the 40D with comparable pixel density like your 6D.

The problem with higher sharpness settings or especially "unsharp mask" is that the results look very unnaturally: e.g. bright halos around black lines or grainy areas ... noise gets also sharper. With the above mentioned setting I get (IMO) photographic results which are similar to the percepted sharpness of Kodachrome 25 or Velvia 50 film.

So slight sharpening is helpful for laaaarge prints or 100% views without destroying the "texture" of the image/the subjects.

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Dual Pixel Liveview Autofocus
« on: July 03, 2013, 07:11:22 AM »
If this thing is already doing pixel-binning for 40 half-pixels, wouldn't it be trivial to have it pixel-bin 4x and make a very nice noise-free 10MP image?  I'm sure that Digic5+ can handle that...

In the telecom world anyway, having 4 signals to work with and compare makes a huge difference in the quality of the transmission.

The 70D has an mRAW mode with 11Mpix RAW file output - it isn't exactly 2x2 (sub)pixel binning which would lead to rectangular pixels ...

Here the information from the Japanese Canon website:
RAW:   5472×3648   20 MPixel    24 MByte
mRAW: 4104×2736  11,2MPixel    19 MByte

The difference in file size doesn't justify using mRAW alone - perhaps DPP runs faster on the 11MPixel files so you can use an older PC for a longer time.
But if RAW stores the real raw information so it might be a better idea to use the full resolution and scale the images down to 10 MPixels afterwards! This is sth. like binning on a irregular way.

EDIT: Or use 5MPix: 2736 x 1824 Pixels - so you got 1 red, 2 green and 1 blue sensor pixel for each image pixel! - same resolution like the first implementation of foveons and real full color image pixels. In some cases probably helpful to get cleaner colors/contrasts with monochromatic light sources or software red filters.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 01, 2013, 01:29:50 PM »
After seeing the 70D specs I have real doubts about buying a 6D. Yeah, what Im talking about??? FF sensor!!! Kill me now. But as far as overall performance the 70D just topped my choice of usefull specs vs. 6D, When I travel to NYC to buy my new body the balance is to the crop body for sure :S (If my budget/credit card flunks on the 5DmkIII)

Why not? APS-C isn't worse than the best 35mm cameras with the best film material we had in the 1990ies - and if you have a good lens arsenal why change everything?
I am really glad with my 600D for movies and the 5.6 400:
  5.6 640 effectively
  5.6 1920 with 3x zoom (one physical pixel = 1 1080p pixel)
With FF? never possible.

The 2.8 100 acts as a 2.8 160mm which his very helpful and the 10-22 ultrawide does a reasonable job. I really prefer to wait for a FF mirrorless (if that will happen) for high resolution/low DOF/reusing my FD lenses and a compact HQ camera and ... use APS-C longer than planned initially.

If ISO 1600 is very clean with the 70D there is no reason to change the sensor format FOR ME.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 70D a New Benchmark in ISO Performance?
« on: July 01, 2013, 12:17:43 PM »
From the original Post:
"We’ve received word that the new Canon EOS 70D which is right around the corner will set the benchmark for ISO performance from a crop camera."

... so it will pave the way for a 50 MPix FF sensor with reasonable ISO ... which has a mRAW mode with a 2x2 pixel binning for 12.5 MPix full color files ... just letting my thoughts flow ... would be very interesting ...

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 24