April 18, 2014, 01:36:07 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 5 ... 55
31
DxOmark's new king of the DR hill is a crop video sensor.  ouch!

Red's Epic Dragon - so video is not a handicap to excellent sensor performance.  I guess I'd based that tenet on some other companys' products. ;)

www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier

Altho not very flexible as a still camera, just goes to prove that well designed hardware can produce excellent performance metrics even at video framerates, ... with a crop sensor.  I'm impressed, too bad we don't get to view the basic measurement data.

I wonder how that Arri would test.

32
Street & City / Re: Neon Bright Stockholm
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:39:28 PM »
I wouldn't do much to 8649, it's got a mood to it that comes across as-is.

The others have very flat lighting but I think they could first benefit from some local contrast enhancements, the strength of which you can vary until it suits your tastes.
After that, you might consider some color toning, subtle or not, to accentuate the look you're after.

It's all up to you, of course.  There are so many processing options available to us these days.
And it is a good idea to solicit opinions from others, tho not necessarily just other photographers, we're a rather biased bunch.  ;D

33
Street & City / Re: Neon Bright Stockholm
« on: February 28, 2014, 07:34:22 PM »
I think you have some decent compositions here and perhaps the color toning improves on the bland light of the originals, which I cannot say..
But, IMO, I don't find this sort of look appealing enough to look at for more than a few seconds.  But that's just one realist's opinion. :)
I like 8238, 8215 and 8191 but would have processed them quite differently to possibly make them more intriguing looking, again, just my opinion.

34
check the 5th paragraph

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/02/28/first-test-pics-of-sigma-50mm-f-1.4-put-it-on-par-with-zeiss-otus-55mm-f1.4

yes, we need to see some real tests but I think Sigma's likely got a lens they can be proud of.

... as I continue to cuss the inconsistent AF of a new, but past warranty EF 50/1.4

35
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 27, 2014, 03:22:24 PM »
lossy-compressed 14 bit raw files from my Nik's survive PP just fine, are Sony's any different?
36MP camera uncompressed raw file is just silly-big without compression

I'm not arguing _lossless_ compression. That's just common sense. It's the fact that the perception of a RAW image format is exactly what the image sensor recorded. I know it's not 100% exactly, as all of the camera makers have a bit of post-processing in the RAW recording pipeline, but my impression is it's very minimal. The Sony format explicitly removes data from what the image sensor records. RAW means, to the vast majority of people, "unprocessed what the sensor captured".

The Sony format breaks that meaning. I'm not arguing that it matters in the vast majority of real-world photos, just that marketing could have easily put that in as an asterisk and at the bottom said something to the effect of "RAW format uses a high quality, lossy storage format to balance high quality & lower storage space". Instead, they just say "14-bit RAW". Which the format literally and figuratively is not 14-bit.

As for saying 36MP raw images are just silly-big, well, that's why you got a 36MP camera, right? You want super-high resolution images. You want smaller file size? Have the camera store a smaller RAW file. Say mRAW or sRAW. You know. Lower resolution files.

My bad, I somehow skipped the link you provided where the a7's showing horribly obvious artefacting.
Wow, that's throwing out too much data in a way that can have obvious consequences!

BAD move there, Sony, very much limits the abilities of an otherwise game-changing camera.

Sony is a system I don't have at this time, but am considering the a6000 for its abilities/$. I hope they don't do a similar compressed raw format like that on it and hopefully they'll fix the a7 series with a firmware update.

36
some impressive looking AF tracking and fps videos on this page but I'd really like to see how well it would track AF and shoot with something like a 50mm or longer with f/2 or wider aperture.

www.dailycameranews.com/2014/02/sony-a6000-af-test/

edit - add another video link:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2f9ue2FJB4 Small | Large

37
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sony raw files lossy compressed
« on: February 27, 2014, 01:50:26 PM »
lossy-compressed 14 bit raw files from my Nik's survive PP just fine, are Sony's any different?
36MP camera uncompressed raw file is just silly-big without compression

38
Lenses / Re: Strange AFMA results with canon 50 f1.4
« on: February 25, 2014, 03:16:46 PM »
I kept my old, NIB 50/1.4 and sold my battle-worn but reliable old one.
Silly me to do that without first testing the one in the box!

The new one has some strange behavior where it focuses perfectly, but only at certain distances, everywhere else it's either front or back focusing by as much as 2 feet at a 12 foot distance, for example.
This was tested using only center AF point on 3 different crop bodies, all with the same results and repeatable.
The old one nailed focus reliably, even if it did show a wee bit of focus shift when stopping down.
This newer lens is not even in the general vicinity most of the time.
Very disappointing and since it's well past warranty, I'm either fixing it myself or selling it.  I need it to AF, MF not an option for my intended use.

Anyone else have a 50/1.4 USM behave like that and what was the specific fix?
Perhaps it's a position encoder on the drive train that's not working properly?

Edit - fixed many typos.

39
Canon General / Re: Off Brand: Nikon Announces the D4S
« on: February 25, 2014, 12:53:06 PM »
To those who say "Canon is not innovative," can now boast of Nikon innovation with ISO 409600. I do not know what use it but the marketing arrange one.
That's what caught my eye, too, and as someone who uses ISO 102400 on my 5DIII all the time, I might have to sell all of my Canon gear to get the D4S.  I think it will really help with my upcoming series - Coal Mines by Matchlight.  If I accidentally run into some methane, this might be my last post ;)

if you have G.A.S. ...

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Full Frame Vs Crop Sensor
« on: February 23, 2014, 02:24:06 AM »
here's my 2-bits

You've got a nice collection of glass, so I won't tell you to abandon it for a different system. (but that's what I did)

Consider a 70D or a 6D, they have more manageable noise characteristics.
if you don't like noise and banding, a used 5d2 might disappoint, depending on the individual body - take some test shots and process before committing to it. I had an early model and it was noisy and had plenty of banding and a 7D is similarly cautioned against for the same reason.

Not sure if they're offered in your area, but a refurbished 6D can be a good deal and a better option and you'll only give up your 10-22.

41
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 22, 2014, 03:01:47 AM »
..you are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010.


Yes.
The 6D and 70D are noticeably improved for low ISO pattern noise so my gripes are confined to Digic 4 SLR bodies. OTH, Digic 4 PowerShot G11 (& G12?) behave pretty well.


[..keep on blaming your tools, if it makes you feel better about your inability to use them properly.


If 20+ other Canon bodies (let's not even consider the Exmor sensored bodies), often used the same way, did not produce objectionable FPN when pushed then how can you conclude that's a user fault? The 7D is KNOWN to have stripey shadows with only a small push that you can even do in DPP.  Too bad you don't have yours yet so you could provide a lens cap shot so we could see if it had stripes or not.

e.g.
7D non-pushed
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9299.msg169599

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9770.msg176368#msg176368


..pattern noise has more to do with the general layout of the camera (pcb), the number of readout channels..


very true. I've identified image noise under some circumstances with my old 40D that seems to be directly related to electronic system noise, most likely an onboard voltage regulator. If I could clean that power supply up i'd have more useful 1600 and 3200 iso on that one.
Digic 4 is only fingered as being the processor in the most egregious DSLR FPN culprits, PowerShots G11 & 12 are Digic 4 and cleaner than the SLRs at base ISO.


People who found the fpn from the 5D MkII and 7D to be particularly problematic are the ones who tended to underexpose, which is outdated advice originally intended to preserve highlights from clipping..


I don't understand how that is outdated advice.
Keeping highlites just short of clipping is how to retain highlite detail; they're not being exposed as a midtone.
Push the rest up as desired, or even further, as in this example from my 60D which survived just fine with a manually exposed shot to retain cloud detail while pushing the rest up in post.

www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.msg154889#msg154889


Quote
Well my reply still stands "Send me some RAW files, 7D and/or 5D MkII, I don't care, I'll even do another video on what I did to them."


I haven't forgotten.  when I can make the time I'll prep a file for you to work on.  I'd like to see if you can process the stripes out without losing detail.  Likely will be one of the 7D sunset shots from link above.

Quote
.. have you noticed the cameras you get better results with are the ones programmed to look after people who don't know what they are doing? The bodies where user input is far more important you can't get results from. Now what does that say?


it says nothing conclusive.  I generally shoot difficult scenes in manual exposure to retain highlite detail levels where I want them so how can an unused comsumer camera's AE features possibly matter?


tried it in DxO, selecting "prime" noise reduction mode and the banding vanished completely


I do have DxO 9 but haven't run any of the old stripey files thru it.  I have seen improved results on some of my older hi ISO files that it did a nice job on.  Thanks for letting me know it worked for you; I have some 5d2 files and 7d files I hope it can fix without excess time spent doing so.

43
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 21, 2014, 02:23:06 AM »
If that's not the case for you, I'd suggest the tools aren't the problem, but rather the tool user.

Nope, that's not the case. I think, perhaps, you've conflated some test methods with actual shooting, hopefully not merely for dramatic effect. ;)

out of the following Canon cameras i've owned & used
  • 3x 350
  • 4x 400
  • 2x 450
  • 2x 1000
  • 1x 40
  • 2x 60
  • 1x 7
  • 1x 5d2
  • 8x G series
  • 9x various PnS

.. only the 7D and 5D2 gave me low ISO problems with FPN.  Pity, I really liked the 7D otherwise, too.
So, those tools did not perform to my requirements, and off they went.
7D's metering was good, tho occasionally clipped highlites a bit much.
5D2's metering would, on occasion, just be wildly out, usually underexposing, not that it mattered most of the time.
No complaints about the other 22 "raw generators."
Can you get how that puts into perspective why I found my 7D, and especially the 5d2, "disappointing?"  A hint if you're missing it, they're also the 2 highest priced bodies of the bunch.

44
Canon General / Re: Canon Says No to Retro Design for Them
« on: February 21, 2014, 01:55:14 AM »
I'd say Olympus and Fuji are doing retro right, in their own styles. And yes, even Canon's G-series.

The Df was hugely disappointing to me.  I think it looks great on the shelf but that's were I'll leave it; it's ergonomics are just wrong IMO.  Tho, it would not take much tweaking to make it much more practical without changing the look of it for those to whom that appeals.  Old Nikonians I know just love it tho.

45
EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 18, 2014, 11:56:00 PM »
I think systems like Fuji's X-mount and Olympus' OMD series and well spec'd items like Sony's a6000 are going to be very DISRUPTIVE in the entry-level DSLR market once people catch on.

Real SLRs will remain a strong market for various virtues, real and imagined, including better handling with large lenses.  But once you get to really large lenses it matters less as you support the lens more than the camera anyway.  Performance becomes more of a factor and, at least until now, SLRs have held the lead.

But some new cameras, like the 'EM1 and the new XT1, have not only good performance and IQ but also have ergonomics that's well suited to handling larger lenses PLUS they share a mount with much smaller bodies and lenses.  This larger ecosystem is already in place for such models and is only a bit of marketing education away from storming low end and enthusiast DSLR sales.
Performance and IQ of these new ML cameras is not appreciably lagging any crop-body SLR!

Perhaps it was Canon's strategy to produce a lacklustre MILC to taint the concept and create marketing roadblocks for their competitors? ;)

I really like small DSLRs like Rebels, Nikon's 5000 and 3000 series and such, but the fit and feel of the EM1 and other ML bodies is similarly good and may be a natural alternative for those who don't want dinky little shapes like the M to work with. But if you DO, and if you bought an EM1, you have Pen series alternatives.  Got and XT1 but want something smaller?... xe2, xm1, xa1.

So Canon's decisions may certainly be making them money, while the likes of Fuji's attitudes towards their customers is earning plenty of respect and the utility and performance of the EM1 is making similar inroads into positive customer mindshare.  Don't underestimate the underdog market appeal.

There's a lot of good choices out there, but I think Canon is gambling a bit much with the M's shortcomings for the sake of profits and losing MILC ground to the competition.  At least for now.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 55