December 21, 2014, 09:57:50 PM

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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 73
16
NOW we're getting somewhere!  A machine like this will temp even me to try out a Sony body... with lots of lens adapters.

www.sony.jp/ichigan/products/ILCE-7M2/

translated at SAR forum:

www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-a77i-officialy-announced-in-japan/

for those who haven't experienced IBIS in a Pentax or Olympus body, it can work very well.  Makes nearly every lens you have stabilized, even classic old primes.

This is a product I wish Ricoh-Pentax would have put out... 2 years ago.

Higher-end A-9 model still rumored for early 2015,  Hmmm...

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D II sensor measurement
« on: November 18, 2014, 10:54:38 PM »
The best page on the 7D Mark II sensor comes from sensorgen.info:
http://sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-7D-Mark-II.html

It is clear from this that Canon still hasn't resolved the high read noise at ISO 100 - 800.
their current system architecture has too many compromises to accomplish that.
But canon users can be happy that they've at least they've finally knocked FPN way down and hopefully that will also become an improvement across their whole range of SLR bodies.

18
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Is this normal, or an issue? 7D mkii
« on: November 11, 2014, 02:44:38 PM »
any chance someone was breathing a bit heavy near your camera and fogged the lens a little bit? ;)
kinda looks like a mild case of condensation

19
Here's another series of screenshots from Iridient Developer, v3 beta.

These are 25% linear scale of the black-cap-shots which give an impression of what the raw files are like when pushed even harder so you can better see the residual horizontal and vertical banding structures.

Files are saved as jpg with 4-4-4 subsampling to better preserve the speckle appearance which 4-2-2 otherwise smears.  hopefully that doesn't get messed up when uploaded here.

These are pushed FIVE stops.
Then another has +100 Fill Light added
Deep Shadow Fine Tune has NO tint correction applied

done for both 100 and 1600 Iso

one 1600 iso is pushed 5 stops, no fill light, and then Deep Shadow Tint-Correction is set to low.  Notice how it does a nice job of removed most of the red noise speckle.  No idea how well this would translate to shadow detail loss, however.  Perhaps someone can try that and post the results.

The file names are 7d2_iso-EV-fillLight-444.jpg

EDIT - just checked full size image recovered from clicking on the sample here and it's pretty much what it should look like.

20
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 09:19:58 PM »
I'm sure there should be some precautionary note about not pointing at the sun too long...

21
I don't know about your lenses or shooting circumstances, but for me lifting the +0.5lv af limit of the 60d (that's not very dark esp. with f4+ lenses) is a merit on its own.

FWIW, I measured +0.1 EV with my Sekonic 558 on an indoor target i was using for some tests.
with the 100-400 L mounted and stroked out to the 400mm end, the 60D and the 7d2 were both able to AF, and oddly, the 60D did it subjectively faster every time.
I think there may be some minor issues the 7d2 needs to have addressed with some firmware tweaks.
I'm pretty sure 7d2 would deliver better IQ than the good old, non-ML-equipped, 60D.

22
Lenses / Re: Is the new 100-400L II going to be a push/pull after all?
« on: November 10, 2014, 08:11:11 PM »
But it is a grower
hopefully also a show-er

23
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: November 10, 2014, 08:09:50 PM »
In the spirit of our under exposed sunset theme I gave one of my Alde boat pictures a darker curve and then brushed back the boats.

I think it has improved it actually.

+1, slightly increases the color saturation in areas which is subjectively pleasant.

24
Hmm, talk about opposite of the design brief use.

not entirely, even motion and tracking AF has to start somewhere.
Another thread or two on the site are discussing the same AF lag issues i experienced.
Compared to my other bodies, this lag is sometimes so long that I'm wondering if I pressed the button!
In the time other bodies give me a confirmation beep, the 7d2 is only just starting to move the lens.  This is not good.

25
What auto focus issues?? I am sure the best thing about the camera will the AF!

I'm expecting it to be the king of AF too...  but some of us have noticed a rather laggard AF response, at least with certain lenses.  I've also found 7d2 to exhibit some inconsistent AF performance at times, enough to be both puzzling and disappointing.  Hopefully it's a firmware fixable thing.  As it is, with the lenses I want to use, it's no better at AF than my 60D.  I'm sure it would track motion better, but for static, center AF point, it's not been impressive .. yet.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - Finally using Canon's newer fab?
« on: November 10, 2014, 01:29:37 PM »
Maybe it's just from the CFA filter having been made even more color blind.

The low color measurement on DxOmark does seem to indicate they may have picked up a little QE from a looser CFA.

27
OK, so I still don’t have ACR or DNG converter that’ll work with the 7d2’s raw files so I can do my standard performance check WITH A LENS CAP ON SHOT. ;)

WELL, HOLY COW, I THINK THEY’VE REALLY DONE IT THIS TIME!

Using the Iridient Developer beta version 3 to process the raw files, the usual 4 stop push shows NONE OF THE VERTICAL STRIPES THAT PLAGUED THE ORIGINAL 7D and many other Canon bodies. (to do this properly you also have to reduce IrD’s DEEP SHADOW FINE TUNE to NO Tint correction.)

www.iridientdigital.com

This doesn’t provide me with a direct comparison vs my usual Adobe-based process but it’s enough to provide much optimism that the major vertical-stripe FPN issue is likely solved.

WAY TO GO CANON GANG! :)

Not all wine and roses tho, there’s still quite a bit of red channel noise and there’s even horizontal and vertical banding patterns that show up at mid ISO levels but they’re of a much larger and smoother nature and will be less likely to cause issues for most pushed shots compared to what Canon users have had to endure for a long time.

I’ve attached some screen shot crops from Iridient 4 processing for a quick comparison, data's in the file name.

28
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D Mark II Reported Issues
« on: November 10, 2014, 03:02:33 AM »
..I noticed is a lag from the time the shutter button is pressed to when the AF locks on.  No hunting just a noticeable lag in acquiring initial focus.  Most may not notice but in sports it can make the difference between getting the shot and not.  This condition does not exist on my 5DIII so it's something specific to the 7DII.

I was using center AF point only (though the condition exists on all of the AF area settings I tried).

I noticed exactly this issue as well with a couple different lenses that I tried, the 100-400 L, the 24-70 f/4 L.
The initial AF acquisition was slower than my other Canon bodies with the same lenses, even at EV~10 for lighting.  It was no better at 0 - 3 EV lighting.
With the long lens, it was also no better at guessing which direction to drive the lens to focus.
It's even dismally slower than my mirrorless bodies with same focal lengths in dim light!  That was very disappointing.

I posted about it here just the other night.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23602.0

I did get a minor improvement in AF performance when I reset the camera to all factory defaults but it still provides me with no more AF magic than my older Canon crop bodies.  i was hoping for better than my current bodies and definitely for faster initial focus acquisition than a cheap mirrorless - but it wasn't to be.
This should be a firmware fix at some point soon... hopefully.

29
All at 53mm, 1/8s, f/4.4, 12800iso, handheld and set to use the IS of the lens rather than the in-body sensor-based IS.
I appreciate your initiative. ??? But without a tripod, your test is just a random result and is not "repeatable" as tests they should be. Blur when holding the camera in hand prevents the AF system to work properly. :-\

I understand your viewpoint here but the point of this informal test is to test the ability of these cameras' AF systems to perform in difficult conditions.  Using a tripod should allow a more consistent test from shot to shot but handheld we get an idea of combined performance of the AF system and the optical stabilization systems.
This is not necessarily an unrealistic approach either.  There are plenty of times that I'll grab a camera to take a shot of something in very dim lighting and do not have time to set up a tripod.  using AF illumination is also not always an option, it may disturb the subject or give away your presence when trying to do a candid.

The stabilizers in each of the lenses should be adequate to allow AF operations handheld, that's one of their benefits.
The long exposure times required to make an image is a different matter, being mostly beyond currently available optical stabilization abilities.  Tho FWIW, the Fuji's done a decent job on the 2nd subject.

30
i) Was that done with centre AF point on 7D2?

yes (last line, first paragraph, opening post ;))

Quote
ii) Did you change the EVF setting on the EM10 so that the VF will gain in brightness? I understand the EM10 EVF can be set to simulate brightness of subjects to the human eye.

I have EVF auto-luminance set to ON, relative exposure simulation is also active.
I think i just wasn't providing enough signal to work with at the framerate the EVF operates at.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 73