September 01, 2014, 05:03:08 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 - Ivar

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
31
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 10, 2012, 09:29:06 AM »
This test is JPG.

But it mentioned that it could be applied in post. Does that mean the RAW without any extra processing is the same DR, but must be processed to achieve the 14 Stop DR?

This is like high ISO - some prefer more (or less) cleaning as opposed to default settings. Moving a shadow slider is no more difficult task. The key is if the source file breaks down during that process or not.

So yes, it needs to be processed - but it MUST contain the info to be extracted in the source.

A photo camera processor is always weaker than a PC, thus allows the latter using more complex and quality algorythms - this is why for the ultimate quality the RAW is preferred over in camera JPG engine (which is still good enough these days for majority of tasks).

32
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 10, 2012, 03:49:29 AM »
This test is JPG.

Then either Nikon has a really crappy in camera JPG engine to lose a 2.7 stop advantage, or more likely DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

DxOMark uses their own RAW decoder. It is my belief that DxOMark's RAW decoder cannot fully decode Canon CR2 files, so DxOMark scores are not accurate for Canon cameras.

The other possibility is that DxOMark is just marketing shill for Nikon.

Speculation...I've speculated for some time now that dxo could (as a very small company) be influenced (if you know what i mean) to purposely set up their testing procedure to favor one company over another in exchange for.....

Both nikon and canon are large global corporations with significant resources...this "influencing" could easily be done...imo.   Again, I'm speculating here, but we've observed time and time again in the global corporate world and in politics all over the world - money influences decisions.   Example, in the news today in the US...mitt romney raises $100 million dollars for his presidential campaign...um, that was just for the month of july AND why do citizens and corps give him that kind of money, we know why right??  Also, a couple months ago walmart was accused of a large scale bribary campaign in Mexico....humm.

Just some stuff to think about....and again, im just speculating and providing raw opinion.   Thanks.

I haven't seen A SINGLE evidence Canon doing better or even the same in DR department no matter the RAW converter.

DxO has clear methodics, while maybe not covering all the aspects, still being a scientific approach and very usable for one knowing what to do with that info.
Opposite to the forum - one "thinks" and "believes", with absolutely no evidence.

P.S. more than sure, the next gen Canon will have a lot of DR, definitely more than Nikon today.

P.P.S Now this is what I believe - Canon just wanted to use the same old tech for economics reasons. This is why there is no high MP camera currently from Canon - stuffing more pixels in and being less attractive in IQ and asking a premium do not exactly fit together. They compete with versatility, which is quite an argument too. Absolutely fine with that, becuse for most applications the IQ is already so good that it does very well even not being the top notch. 

33
EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mk III vs D800/E, is the 5D3 better at anything?
« on: July 09, 2012, 03:46:08 AM »
Correct me if I'm wrong here. Look at DPreviews stop wedge here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

Without any additional ADL or any extra processing in camera and nothing on. The d800 gets the same DR as the 5D3? Its showing this, so does that mean all the nikon is doing is pulling more from the blacks and pulling more recovery by a software curve at the cost of noise? Its seems like fake DR to me.

If yes, This means that the nikon sensor is not doing anything better than the canon. Just adding a curve which I could do to the canon in post and get the same result right? This also confirms my suspicion that Bayer sensor have hit there peak already and new sensor design like the Fuji S5pro are needed to gain True DR.

If not, Is this test valid?

Just seems like a false 14-stop DR from nikon by this test.

This test is JPG.



34
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information [CR1]
« on: July 02, 2012, 02:47:47 PM »
All that sounds like "me too" in a crowded place. Why would anyone buy a Canon version of the same?
Mediocre high ISO, less DR than competition.

35
No comparison is bad or good, they just serve different purposes. Downsizing a bigger image compares how a camera reacts to the *same* amount of light - which wouldn't be the case without downsizing (assuming the same (area) size sensors and shot setup). At the same time looking resolving power, a smaller image has to be uppsized because downsizing would just throw the extra info away - detail wise there is no difference between two 600x400 pixels image one being 80MP MF the other G1X. All comparison have meanings done and interpreted properly.


Yes, turn my 36mp body into a 22mp body in order to make it look better.  Thats how DXO rationalizes the high per pixel noise into something usable.  Maybe if they resized it to one pixel it would be perfect.

The point is that there is no holy grail, and all the posting being done by those who just read articles and have zero experience with either camera is not very helpful.

Obviously, my D800 can take some amazing images at ISO 100 - 400, but just like the OP notes with his 5D MK III, as soon as you get into shadows and the ISO gets up over 400, you have to be more careful with exposures, and at very high ISO's, the 5D MK III has more DR than the D800.

36
It takes 6mp to 8mp to make a quality print.

Absolutely nice try.


37
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]
« on: June 03, 2012, 10:03:55 AM »
Unfortunately not a very good test for deciding the high ISO capability - look at the shutter speed, there was plenty of good quality (studio) light, which absolutely doesn't reflect the intended use. It is the low light under which cameras start to break down in IQ.

There is some good news out there, though. Have any of you seen the recent series of sample images? I thought for sure someone was going to post the link because they have been there for 36 hours or so, but I haven't noticed anyone mention it yet.

http://www.fotomagazin.de/test_technik/testbilder/detail.php?objectID=6204&class=&thema

If you toggle through the photos at full screen size (not 1:1), it's impossible to tell any difference until beyond ISO 12,800. At 1:1 it is great, no worse than ISO 400 on cameras five-six years ago. The top of the regular ISO range, 51,200, actually does look usable as well--certainly better than 25,600 on the 5D3.

I am so excited because I was still grappling in my mind with the worry that I should have gone with the D4 (I already own complete systems of both Canon and Nikon, so the array of lenses isn't an issue for me).

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS-1D X Delays [CR2]
« on: May 31, 2012, 05:46:04 AM »
You sound like any earlier Canon camera has had no FW update. Considering how complex the software has become, a FW update is rather a minor thing. Important is to get the HW right and the product 99% working.

P.S I'm willing to make a bet that the 1Dx gets its FW update as well, absolutely no doubt.

P.P.S Internet unfortunately works that way by making rare things seemingly to affect everybody and often. The reality for the D800 is the same as for the 5D3 - in the real world usage no problems for majority.

Perhaps Canon have learnt from Nikon's mistake of early release of the D800 and D4. They have just issued their first firmware upgrade to cure lockups and other issues.

Can you imagine the noise if Canon released the 1DX with those problems. The only hitch with the 5DIII was the non problem of the light leak which was blown out of all proportion.

The D800 issues are real nasty things - I would be sending the D800 back if this happened to me

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-11677-12641

39
I'm sorry but Canon would not have done such a thing, it just was not possible to get by without doing so.

What would have left of the 5D3 without its AF in the marketplace?

Other common declarations:

"There's no way Canon will ever put a 1-series AF system in a 5D3."

"We'll be lucky if Canon puts the 7D AF system in the 5D3."

"Canon will never put the 1Dx's AF system in anything other than a 1Dx."


Welp, Canon proved those claims wrong, addressed the most glaring weaknesses of the 5D2, but now the hot topic is DR and Canon still sucks.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon to Announce 2 Cameras in June [CR2]
« on: May 16, 2012, 11:20:46 AM »
Realistically thinking Canon will put the G1X sensor into a body which has interchangeable lenses and call it mirrorless.

They can't really challenge their upper end cameras, can they?

41
> After DPREVIEW of D800 would you still get the Canon 5d mark iii?

I think no (single) review should force you to change systems or upgrade cameras.

That said, the D800 was exactly specs-wise what I was looking for in order to replace my dutily served 5D2.  I can't say how happy I'm currently, got it just today, the battery is charging.

42
At the same shutter speed, the same sized print (or downsize of a bigger image) would NOT be different no matter the density (22MP vs 36MP).

True, in order to benefit even more from a higher density sensor, it is advisable to use higher shutter speeds in such fast action situations.

Again, a 36MP sensor is no worse recording image than a 22MP at the same shutter speed, it can only be better.

Here's a scenario for you that think they're equal in noise. When you increase pixels you also need to shorten your shutter speed to not show motion blur. I tried the D800 and I had to have at least 1/2500s to freeze a bike messenger I tried outside the shop where I work, that means going to 3200 iso whereas with the 5d3 I had iso 1250 and around 1/1000s, no motion blur on either, but I was over a full stop higher in iso , making the image, of course, more noisy and less DR (that some of you are EXTREMELY conserned about).

43
They are different options.

Not everybody needs high FPS and extremely fast AF.

Not everybody needs 36MP and high DR.

What is your compromise? And set of lenses you already have?


------------------------------------------------------
This is personal and completely subjective:

While Canon has undoubtedly a good camera, I feel their camera development attitude 1) is too carefully weighted (crippled if you wish) and 2) is lacking a clear lead in the competition and 3) priced relatively high
Add on that the mystery of releases: 1Dx delays, lenses delays, printer delay (Pro 1), missing high MP sensor ..

It is not that the 5D3 wouldn't do all the things I need, but rather I'd support somebody who has the heart for photography, so that one could not sense things being left out for marketing reasons.



44
EOS Bodies / Re: Up the game
« on: May 07, 2012, 04:10:58 AM »
The 5D2 was a revolutionary camera at the time announced.  I consider this pretty big deal.

Please name ONE thing that was better with the 5d2 than the 5d3?

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Mirrorless Information? [CR1]
« on: May 06, 2012, 03:15:30 AM »
Also, a better DR than the 5D3 would be nice.

Come on Canon, go full frame or don't bother.

+24.36

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10