August 30, 2014, 02:31:48 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] 4 5 ... 8
31
EOS Bodies / Exmor vs DualISO
« on: August 14, 2014, 09:58:38 PM »
Note: This was a two particle article that I merged together so I may have missed some things and there may be sections where the writing doesn't flow properly.

I've already posted this on another website but thought people here might be intersted as well.  I've noticed there's a feeling that MagicLantern's DualISO for the 5D3 is nothing more than a gimmick and that it's too flawed to actual be useful.I've been using it for over a year now and while there were some major tradeoffs to using it in the beginning, the MagicLantern guys (i.e. mostly A1ex) have made enormous steps towards making it a genuinely useful tool for high dynamic range shooting on Canon DSLRs.

When the A7R was first released I bought one because I wanted to see what it was like shooting on the same sensor as the D800E, but after a couple days I returned it because I just could not get over the terrible ergonomics and poor battery life of the camera.  I did do some very rough comparisons between DualISO and the A7R at the time so I had some sense then of how they compared.  Anway, fast forward to a couple weeks ago; like always happen someone was complaining that their 5D3 didn't give enough dynamic range, so I recommended DualISO and then a bunch of people started claiming that you lose half your resolution, get horrible aliasing and artifacts, it was completely unsuitable for printing, and still didn't get rid of the pattern noise or bring the DR anywhere close to an Exmor sensor camera.  I wanted to create some kind of controlled experiment to compare a DualISO 5D3 with an Exmor sensor, as I hadn't seen anything like that online, so I bought an A7 and EF adapter to perform the test.

The first shot shows the two shots pictures with no post-processing exposure adjustments (Note: Please forgive the terrible picture, I was cleaning up my bike while I was doing this.) Exposure was set so that the sky was as exposed as possible without clipping and I turned off all the lights in my garage so that the interior was much darker. Focus is on the rectangular object in the lower left corner, which is a Risk box, and is ~5 stops underexposed. Both pictures were taken with a 70-200ii.



The second shot shows the result of a 5-stop push in LR to the entire exposure for each shot. The 5D3 shot was scaled to match the resolution of the A7 so there was no obvious difference due to resolution. Also, for these shots there's no luminance noise reduction applied but I did apply +25 of chrominance noise reduction; I'll show a shot with zero noise reduction in the full writeup.



Finally the meat of what I wanted to know, in a severely underexposed area of the frame where I pushed the shadows an ungodly amount how well does the 5D3 with DualISO compare.



The 5D3, left, shows a bit more noise and less detail but actually maintains more accurate colors than the A7 which seems to desaturate the shadows significantly. But compared to the difference between a vanilla 5D3 and the A7 and this becomes a pretty amazing result.

For fun, here's the vanilla 5D3 and the 1Ds3 for comparison.



Also, the X-T1 vs the A7.


32
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 14, 2014, 12:26:53 PM »
Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples.  No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?
To be fair, the DPReview comparison between the 5D3 and the D810 backs this up.

Except that DPR 'testing' is based on default ACR conversions, and like most 'high ISO tests' they are not 'low light tests' because they're shot in bright light with a very fast shutter, which has significant implications for the relative noise contributions.

Good point, I can't speak to the ACR conversion, but if you click on the lightbulb in that comparison they also have a low light version of the test that's a bit more realistic.  I'm not sure it changes the conclusion though as the D810 still looks just a little worse than the 6D at print sizes.  Obviously 100% is a completely different story with the 5D3 and D810 being pretty much equal and the 6D being ~2/3rd stop better.

33
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 14, 2014, 11:14:45 AM »
Someone asked about performance at ISO 12800, he said he'd post samples but that the D810 was better...yet he didn't post samples.  No follow through, or he couldn't back up his statement with images?

To be fair, the DPReview comparison between the 5D3 and the D810 backs this up.  The D810 seems about equal to the 6D in terms of high ISO RAWs.

34
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 14, 2014, 09:22:13 AM »
That this test used a converter which does not favour Canon shadows (at x00% view, anyway - FFS) tells you far more about the converter than it does about the camera, and for a supposedly pro tester/photographer to utterly ignore the significance of choice of converter in getting the best out of a camera's files, is risible.

You don't test well by testing in some supposedly equal playing field (in this case a commonly-used converter); you test in such as way as to get the best out of each camera, and that will often necessitate different converter choices.

Ergo, this "test" proves nothing about what the 5D Mk III can do compared with the D810, just what it did do in a half-arsed effort which seems more intended to bring attention to the testers than to the cameras...

I just did a comparison between LR5.6 and DPP4 and am not seeing this huge difference in shadow noise that you're describing.  Can you show some examples?

35
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 1dx vs Nikon d810
« on: August 12, 2014, 10:53:22 PM »
Focus is definitely off on the D810, look at the eyebrow.

36
Plastic zoom and focus rings, hmmmm, that's first in the the L world with a full plastic outer shell.

That may be, but it has the best focus and zoom action of any L lens I've ever used.

37
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 08, 2014, 09:58:55 PM »

A technique he uses to undermine anyone who does not agree with him that Canon is 100% perfect and there is no need for any other camera manufacturer, and that any discussion on the subject is irrelevant.


I'm curious if you actually believe this is what he's been saying or if you're just trolling him.

38
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 08, 2014, 09:26:50 PM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.

39
Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: August 08, 2014, 08:43:43 PM »
I want to see him perform a decent AF comparison and not one where he only uses the center/central AF point(s). Let's say photographing a kid on a swing (in motion) at F/1.4 to F/2 with one of the side AF points located at roughly one third of the image. If you do that, you'll be comparing crosstype AF points (5D3) vs non-crosstype AF points (D810) and will see the D810 getting blown out of the water.

This was the only part of the review that I had any issue with.  I have no trouble believing that the D810 beat the 5D3, but the 60% hit rate on the 5D3 is just much lower than my experience.  I'd love to see what tracking settings he used for the test.  Based on the RAW files that he posted, we know that he did the AF Servo test on the Canon using Spot AF and didn't use any of the f/2.8 double cross type points, which makes me think he probably didn't tweak the tracking to best suit the situation.  The other possibility is that there's a servo tracking issue with the Tamron 24-70 VC, but I've never used one so can't really say.

Edit: Just looked through the RAW files and it appears all of his tracking settings reported in the exif were all reasonable so I'm not really sure what to make of these results; I thought for sure the tracking sensitivity was too high but I guess not.  Maybe it's something to do with the lens or the focus point used.

40
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 08, 2014, 05:24:54 PM »
I take photos that earn quarter of a million dollars (AU) per annum.

~US$230K, it takes you a whole entire year to make that much?  Am I supposed to be impressed? 

Remember, you can't just compare length, it's length times diameter plus weight over girth divided by angle of the tip squared. =)

41
i had the jobu BWG Pro II, the wimberley and still have the benro GH2.

the jobu is great but a bit to big for my needs.
would be my first choice for a 800mm.
i sold it becaue it´s oversized for my needs.
but very good quality. it uses sealed ball bearings (unlike wimberley and benro who don´t use ball bearings at all).

the wimberley is good but imo overprized.
the benro GH2 is as good as the wimberley. it´s basically a very good clone.
i tested them side by side with a 600mm f4.

the only point for wimberley left imo is the reputation (and a bit of "status") they build in past years.
but im not paying twice as much for just that.  :)

I just checked prices, and the Wimberley II and Benro GH2 basically cost the same ($595 versus $585).  Given that, which would you prefer and why?  Does either company do better at standing behind their product?

The GH3 I might consider along with the Wimberley since you can break it down for transport sort of like the RRS offering, but the GH2 would have to be significantly cheaper than the Wimberley to consider it.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Mirrorless vs DSLR Camera
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:06:34 PM »
Is Mirrorless has faster focusing?

Nowhere near as fast as a DSLR outside of ideal conditions, but they're pretty good in bright light on static subjects when using native lenses.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D II Specs Listed on KDrama Stars
« on: August 01, 2014, 10:58:49 AM »
This would be a bit disappointing.

44
So you're saying we can get a 1/16000th shutter speed once every few minutes? =)

45
Likewise, some do HDR for the express purpose of a slightly surreal, dramatic effect.

I believe this is known as the HDR hole.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8