I was browsing at YouTube and saw this interesting video on 7D2... the interesting part is not the 7D2:
Have a nice day.
Oh man, that portrait at 2:02.
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.
I was browsing at YouTube and saw this interesting video on 7D2... the interesting part is not the 7D2:
Have a nice day.
A renewed 50/1.4 may not even be "1.4" but rather "1.8" or "2.0" but with the addition of IS. Unless Canon wants to canabilize sales of the 50/1.2L, a newer 50mm from Canon won't have better IQ than the 50/1.2L and thus will not have better IQ than the Sigma.
How is the autofocus on the 50mm Art?
I have the 50mm f1.8 Canon (love it wide open) and the 50mm f1.4 Sigma from long ago... it is a surprisingly sharp lens with great smooth bokeh, but the autofocus is awful! Likewise the 18-35mm f1.8 is dodgy... but surprisingly irks on my 5D Mark III just not crop bodies.
Worries me. I'm ready to spring for the Sigma but want to see if anything better from Canon comes out first.
You're actually asking if a €900 Sigma with 77mm from 2014 is an upgrade vs a €300 58mm Canon from 2005?
I never said game changer for bif and wildlife. I said it was superb if you're not in the high end 1d market. I said the anti flickering mode is a game changer, and it is.
it was already mentioned that DPP is better at develop cr2 raw expecially in the shadows, from this point your examples of the blue boat is very interesting even more with no noise reduction ... In the end if not better sensor Canon could realise a better/powerful software or why not help Adobe improve the CR2 raw converter Their DPP is free, they do not need to protect sales in this regard, maybe it is the opposite, there are many adobe customers that could get more out of canon so no need to search elsewhere.
That is debatable. DPP shows less banding and noise in shadows now, but it also gets a very mushy, sometimes almost posterized, very fake, digital, waxy, no detail look IMO. Personally I'd call that putting lipstick on a pig.
Then a funny thing then happened. All of a sudden I could not stand looking at the 60D files with anything over ISO 800. The truth is even ISO 400 is quite bad compered to a NEX 6 at ISO 400. I was never quite satisfied by high ISO performance but the difference was eye opening.
Er, I'm going to have to beg to differ. Here's the D810 at ISO 6400 and at ISO 100 pushed 6 EV:
Can you tell which is which?
Btw, in the ISO 100 file, that road has a signal of average 7 for the green channel, where the SNR is 3.5. Red channels is like 4. These are all on a 16-bit scale. So pixels with signals of literally 4-7 in the Raw file (1 being minimum, ~16,000 being maximum).
So I'm not even talking about pushing a midtone or even a shadow +6 EV. I'm talking about pushing some of the deepest of the deep shadows 6 EV. With brighter tones - you can't tell *any* difference between ISO 6400 and ISO 100 pushed 6 stops. But here even with tones all the way down at the floor of the sensor/Raw file, it's hard to see the difference. If that doesn't wow you...
Point being: yes you can push 6 stops for certain Exmor sensors. Though it does get tricky with ACR, since it's not really built to do that. I had to use the 'Blacks' slider which ends up reducing contrast, and I adjusted until I got the same brightness in the road as the ISO 6400 file.
Key word here: implied. You assumed, despite me explicitly saying 'almost' and also pointing out that there are limitations due to quantization error. Which is exactly why I said some posts ago that ISO 400 is the 'magic' ISO above which there's not much benefit to hardware ISO amplification for full-frame cameras, b/c this is where one electron is counted by one digital increment in your RAW file ('unity gain ISO').
That's why I explicitly said you can choose ISO 400 rather than 6400 or 12.8k some posts above, remember?
No, ISO 100 pushed is not always going to be the same as ISO 400, for tones below a certain threshold where quantization error is an issue (or where downstream read noise is somewhat more significant b/c you're only counting every 3-4 photoelectrons per digital increment).
I alluded to all of these from the very beginning, but I can't always write a novel every time I'm talking about a concept.
Also, careful about resampled views in Lightroom. I actually do see a tiny bit of banding in your image - perhaps the A7 sensor is more outdated compared to the A7R? The magenta blotching can be reduced typically with the Shadows Tint slider under Camera Calibration. Also, magenta noise does seem to be more of an issue with the A7 than A7R, if I remember correctly.
The D810 surpasses even the A7R.
Also, that's a +5 EV push. Your initial claim that ISO 100 + 4EV falls apart to posterization and banding and noise compared to ISO 1600 is just not true - at least not with an A7R or D810. But, yes, quantization error and the effects of non-zero downstream read noise *will* have some effect at some extreme point. But even when it does, it's very easy to remove. It's usually as subtle as the noise that comes with higher ISOs. Not the magenta blotchiness and banding your example shows. Only time I see magenta blotchiness is in the JPEG preview, b/c of the limited quality/bit-depth of some of the preview JPEGs LR uses. There can be some significantly smaller faint magenta blotchiness for signals down in the RGB = 1,1,1 area, and those can easily be removed with color NR which thankfully rarely kills much actual image detail.
Also, realize LR's histogram is not the best judge b/c of the way it actually works. I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to when you're talking about 'posterization', but as long as your sampling is such that shot/statistical noise is sampled by at least one digital increment in your Raw file, the dithering effect of the noise will take care of posterization. If we do a little math and use some approximations, a signal of 16 photoelectrons varies by +/- 4 b/c of shot noise, and that signal is represented by, say, roughly 4 at ISO 100. The noise is represented by 1 digital increment, so you're fine. Yes, below this, you're not sampling the noise properly, so you may run into issues. That's where you'll benefit from using ISO 400. But if you're seriously trying to use image data from 16 photons and below... well, now, *there's* an extreme case.
And like I said, above ISO 400, most of these issues are obviated, as you yourself have seen. From that point onward, you can do huge pushes and literally see no noise cost compared to shooting at the higher ISO.
Actually, you can perform quantitative tests to figure out exactly where this 'magical ISO' is.
Overall, I'm not sure what your point is though. You can generally use the technique I mentioned, save for ridiculously low signals of I'm guessing like 30 photoelectrons or less. I thought I was OK leaving that edge case out, at the risk of writing the novel I just wrote above.
And all that said, it does seem your A7 is not performing up to the level of the A7R or D800/810. Which is not too surprising - again, it's an older sensor.
It actually works well (usually without trouble) up to 5 1/3 to 5 2/3 stops. You may start seeing some issues starting at around 5 stops...depends on the exposure and how deep your really going (you can still ETTR with an Exmor camera). Push an Exmor raw that far, and with a good exposure you still won't see color noise, and those sensors are entirely devoid of any kind of banding unless your utterly cracked (there are guys on DPR who have used the brush to boost exposures from the D800 up to 10 stops, where they eventually finally to notice extremely minor banding amongst all the random color noise.) The Exmor advantage is a little over five stops, so that's generally what you can get with a strait exposure-slider and highlight/shadow-slider push in LR. Doing so does not result in anything remotely resembling the kind of noise you get when you push a Canon image a mere couple of stops, let alone three or four or more on top of some explicit shadow pushing with the shadow slider.
You can work the data more...you can tweak it more carefully and preserve and enhance color. It's more work...and it may or may not be important to the ultimate goals. Simple fact of the matter is...you have the option with a camera built around an Exmor sensor. You don't have the option with a Canon sensor.
I see banding and color noise, but no posterization. Posterization is basically "cartoonization", which results in the effect you see in this image:
The pinkish-red and blue blotchiness of the shadows in the image you have shared is a form of color noise. That could very likely be due to the lossy compression Sony employs in their raw files...which is one of the things I truly DO NOT like about their cameras. I cannot fathom why Sony would gimp their own cameras by using a non-raw "raw" image format...it aint RAW if your throwing away data. Bleh.
Sure, I don't disagree with that. However, to outright state that their camera sensors are the best on the market is taking it too far. There are many other words and phrases that could be used to describe Canon sensors and still give Canon customers the sense that Canon is working to improve things. But to outright state that they don't know what measurements could possibly be indicating their sensors are lacking in the dynamic range department, or to outright state that their sensors are the best in the world...that's insane.
Especially when so many customers in the market KNOW it's a bold faced lie. Because that's exactly what it was...a bold faced lie.
And even if you do push 7, 8, or 9 stops, it's still not going to result in the ugly read noise or banding you'll see with gentle pushes of Canon DSLR files. So I still have no idea about the banding, color noise, posterization, and whatnot raptor3x was talking about from a 4 EV push. Which he's now, apparently, changed to a 6+ stop push - but even then, I don't see anything near ugly posterization, banding, or even significant noise. A tiny bit more noise than native ISO when you're pixel-peeping, yes, but hardly worth raising a fuss about.
I think the simple point is, when you need to push 6 stops...you can. And you can work the data to recover lost color fidelity. With a Canon camera, you can't. Well, you can push 6 stops, but as PBD's (and many other's examples, and hopefully soon my own, as I just rented an A7r and Metabones EF adapter) images demonstrate, the shadows are so riddled with noise that is so bad, no matter how much you work it, it isn't going to get any better.
With Sarangiman's window example, you could HDR that...but your almost guaranteed to get integration artifacts, and removing ghosts isn't always the solution...sometimes you have to manually work it, sometimes you have to excessively bracket (one of the original videos demonstrating ACR's 32-bit 20-stop TIFF HDR toning used 15 shots in bracket to handle an HDR of the interior of a darkened plane with a very bright window...the 15 shots weren't for DR, they were to avoid artifacting around and in that window.)
It isn't generally a common situation to need to push 6+ stops. There are cases where it could be very useful, and for certain kinds of photography, it could be more useful than in other kinds of photography. PBD's example images are far from extreme. Before the shadow lift, the shadows under the awning were not pitch black and buried deep. They were light shadows, you could see into them...and even lifting that, in a realistic edit, produced very clean, usable results on the Exmor camera, and some heavy banding and not much detail (recoverable or otherwise) on the Canon camera. Canon's banding and read noise reaches up to the lower midtones. The 7D II may prove to have solved the banding issue, if so, WONDERFUL! That's a good sign. There is still the random read noise, though, and that's still going to eat away at detail...possibly right up into the lower midtones. NOT having that problem would just be...wonderful.