December 22, 2014, 11:25:16 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 - raptor3x

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Ron Martinsen Blasts the 7DII in his review
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:12:03 AM »
Here´s a short video, where he is demonstrating the fantastic (in his view) autofocus with facial recognition on the D4S:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nInuePLiO1k
Even for a totally still, well (over)lit face, it still hunts ...

In his D4S review, which he claim has the best AF system in the world, he is using his kid on a swing, as "the ultimate AF challenge" ::)

My favorite part of his D4S review is how he spends the entire article talking about how the D4S has the best AF system ever created and is so much improved over the D4 and then in the last paragraph or so admits that the 1DX can do everything the D4S can do but just needs to have the AF options configured correctly.

2
Lenses / Re: Quick Comparison: Canon's new 400mm Options
« on: December 19, 2014, 11:19:38 AM »
He must have picked an excellent copy of the original 100-400 for his comparison.  I'd say my version 1 lens is average but the version II lens is excellent.  My copy of the new one is much sharper wide open plus the much improved IS and twist zoom is a "must upgrade" if you use this lens a lot.

They tested four copies of each generation 100-400, and averaged the numbers.

Yeah but all four of those copies had been tuned on their optical bench so it's not like he picked fours copies at random from out in the wild.

Quote from: RCicala
One thing I'll just throw out for discussion regarding 100-400 comparisons. It's a lens we find we have to optically adjust fairly frequently over time (maybe 10% of copies) and the problems are always at 400mm only. The 4 copies I tested had all been optically tested and screened on a bench prior to this measurement.

3
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 19, 2014, 10:35:20 AM »
I was skeptical that this lens could live up to the hype.  It appears the hype was justified:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=972
Roger at Lens rentals disagrees. He just posted a comparison of the old and new 100-400mm and there isn't that much difference between them.
He also posted on the 400 DO. Which appears to be significantly better than the mark 1.
Hopefully Roger will get some Sigma 150-600mm's soon and run a comparison between them,the Tamron and the Canon 100-400mm II

Over on FM, Roger mentions that he was very suprised by the results as the lmatest numbers didn't quite match what he saw in his own test shots.

Quote from: RCicala
I was a bit surprised at the 100-400 results myself, I expected more difference. Shooting test charts (same ones as TDP uses) I could see a difference that the Imatest results didn't measure. Perhaps it's a decrease in some aberrations? I'm not sure.

4
Lenses / Re: Canon 100-400 ii Image Quality Review Posted at TDP
« on: December 18, 2014, 03:22:41 PM »
Slightly off topic but is the new Nikkor 80-400G really as bad at 400mm as TDP is showing?  Those results seems completely unacceptable for a nearly $3K lens.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:57:38 PM »
Sir, I do not think, that Conon will release an "bad-sensored" camerabody. Maybe the IQ is not the the IQ you get from the Nikon D800E or Sony A7 36MP.  I hope -  it will be on an equal level like the IQ of todays Canon products.
Just think of, what will happen to Canon if this Camera is rubbish? They will never release an under-average product.
Maybe it took so long to developa an good high MP sensor.

Wasn't that what the EOS-M was considered to be by many... even Canon themselves(recently)?

EOS-M was only under-average on AF ...and corporate support of the basic idea.  The IQ is actually quite good and I think APS-C is not a terrible call to split the difference between the mirrorless world that wants everything made smaller and the mirrorless world that wants best possible IQ.  They clearly need products for both camps, but APS-C is not a terrible starting point and the EOS-M could have been successful as a result.

But I still don't think Canon has launched a mirrorless system until they give us a @#$%ing EVF and more than two native lenses to choose from at B&H.   The embarrassment of the EOS-M is not the product so much as Canon pushing a ship in flames out of port with a vague intention to 'put that fire out soon'.

- A

That 22mm pancake is one hell of a lens.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: High Megapixel Camera Coming in 2015 [CR3]
« on: December 17, 2014, 12:26:03 PM »
The 5DIII will be 3 years old in March next year. A move to 50MP will pretty much follow Moor´s law. That same law should indicate just over a doubling of its computing power and given the speed of new memory cards, we should a least expect a camera that could chew 50MP at a slightly higher speed than the 5DIII and thus see at least 6, probably 8 fps.

If it was following Moore's law and we have a period of 36 months between releases, then we'd expect to see a ~88MP camera, not a ~44MP camera if we also assume that pixel count scales like transistor count.

7
It's great to know who makes generic plates, but who else does decent lens-specific replacement feet with integrated ArcaSwiss rails?  Being lighter, more compact, and directly attached to the collar could be great.

Sunwayfoto actually does make lens specific replacement feet with integrated arcaswiss rails as well.

8
PowerShot Cameras / Re: Canon to Target The GH4 With New DSLR Type? [CR2]
« on: December 15, 2014, 03:06:02 PM »
Low light performance is just happens to be the most important video feature, it is the one feature that can get you the shot or miss it. The GH4 is basically useless for video past ISO 1600, and not that great at 1600 either. The 5D3 gives great results up to about ISO 10,000 and with Magic Lantern you get zebras, peaking, magic zoom, and a ton of other goodies, so the GH4 doesn't cut it for me. The Sony A7s will be a great option when they get a good selection of native FF lenses, but Canon will probably have an offering before Sony gets the lenses made.

Does anyone actually use the FE lenses for video?  I would have thought that the way the manual focus rings are setup leaves them pretty much dead in the water for video.

9
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: FYI: D750 light leak issues
« on: December 14, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »
I suppose this happens to all manufacturers nowadays.
(to summarize, there is a light leak when shooting into backlit scenes using live view)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1331716/0

Looks like they were determined to copy the 5DIII as closely as possible.

It's a very different issue from what happened with the early 5D3s.  It's more like the effect you see with the non-flocked EF-FE adapters where you can get some very strong flaring that's artificially cutoff whereas the 5D3 issue was purely a metering thing.

10
Software & Accessories / Re: An Easy Magic Lantern How-To from CNET
« on: December 12, 2014, 11:09:52 AM »
I find it funny that the article fails to mention two of the most important features of magic lantern: DualISO and RAW video.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: iOptron SkyGuider
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:58:02 PM »
Up to now I have used 14mm, 21mm  and 16-35mm (and once in the past 300mm f/4). The nice thing with this mount is that I can trust it with a heavy setup since the attachment is at its center and it has no need of counterweights.

I would not trust a 500mm lens even on the new device you mentioned mainly because I would fear the excess size would make it prone to accidents...

It seems like you could alleviate any concern of that by using a ground screw anchor and a tie down strap to keep the tripod from moving.  It wouldn't be practical for landscape type photography where you're moving quite a bit, but should be fine for astrophotography where you're more likely to sit in the same spot for long periods of time.

12
7D II (horizontal, red cast):


That's surprising.  The DPReview samples have no sign of banding no matter how hard you push them and yours is definitely the first mention of any kind of banding I've heard about from the 7D2.  Even at +7 stops there's nothing but random noise in the DPReview samples, although they don't supply lenscap shots =).  Are there RAW files available for those samples?  Do you know how much they were pushed? 

13
This is the kind of scenario where I would be looking a m43 very seriously.  You could bring a 7-14, 12-40, and 40-150 along with two E-M1s and a crapload of batteries for the same pack space as you 24-70 and 70-200.

14

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

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


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


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


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

Ah, ok, I thought you meant you were seeing blotchy colors just when using high ISO, I've definitely seen the blotchy colors in the 5D3 files when doing 5+ stop pushes with dual ISO.  As for the horizontal banding in the 7D2, do you have any examples?  I have yet to see any banding at all in the 7D2.  Here is a comparison of the 7D2 and A7R both pushed 5 at ISO 100 from the DPReview low light sample gallery.  I don't see any more banding in the 7D2 than the A7R, which is to say none.


15

No. Definitely not. I have used the 7d for the past 5 years and know its sensor very well. There is no way on earth to produce this very image done by erez marom with a canon 7d from a single exposure, no matter how much you pull the sliders in post processing. Just no way.

MagicLantern DualISO...

Does it work on 7d ? I thought ML had a hard time running at all on 7d because of the dual digic setup?

Anyway, as i said before i will definitely stay away from installing ml or other third party firmware on my camera/s, due to possible compatibility and/or warranty issues or other "unwanted side effects". But of course that is just me, ymmv.

They solved the issue with the Dual Digics a long time (maybe 2 years) ago.  The 7D was the 2nd camera that Alex got dualISO working on, the 5D3 being the first.  It works very well and gives the 7D at least the same dynamic range as the Sony crop sensors whereas the 5D3 can end up with better DR than the D810, but you have to be willing to work with one of the experimental builds.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18