October 24, 2014, 09:00:09 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 - Aglet

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 70
31
I posted that particular picture for two reasons, first because of the composition being so similar to yours, the second because I knew you would do the "oh but the 1Ds MkIII is the only Canon camera that could do that" so it is from a 2002 1D.

HAHA!  I see you like messin' with us.  ;)
BUT - I could boot up my old 40D and it would also fare quite well with a deep shadow lift.
The challenge is to rework a shot like that on a Digic 4 or Digic 5 body.  Digic 3 and older didn't generally have as much of an FPN problem, even if they still had plenty of noise.

32
Knee on the one leg is in fairly bad shape. I don't think I broke anything, but ..

sorry to hear that, especially when you had a weekend planned, even if the Wx didn't quite cooperate.
I did a bunch of similar damage to a knee many ago too, more than once, actually, and much more than my knees. Took months for me to get back to normal walking and still have some good scars and use limitations.  I hope you fare much better.  I'm frustrating I can't go on long hikes any more.
OTOH, I chuckle at the reaction I see whenever some x-ray tech looks over my images before forwarding them, they just look at me and shake their head.   ;D

33
Technical Support / Re: 6D pattern on image?
« on: September 28, 2014, 03:26:52 PM »
Welcome to the forum Len.

Another Canon customer discovers his new camera is not perfect.
You're not alone.
A few of us found this issue to be so prevalent with certain types of shots we chose to not use Canon cameras for them.
YMMV
It's the commonly known weakness of canon cameras known as FPN, or Fixed Pattern Noise, and it's more of an issue in low iso shots, especially if boosting the exposure levels in post later.
FWIW, the 6D and 70D bodies are the least-affected contemporary bodies, so it could be worse.

You'll find a lot of ardent discussion on this forum about this issue disguised as DR or dynamic range.

EDIT:  you'll find a very active one right here

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=22999.0

34
Of course there will be those that say my Aldeburgh beach shot didn't hit the noise floor ? Is that the term that has been bandied about ?

Here is a frame that is from the faster exposure, this one not actually part of a pano sequence. The first is the original, converted from the raw, the second is the push from the same frame, the third is a 100% crop of the push. There has been no noise reduction applied, this is a straight conversion from DPP. It is a blue boat which doesn't make the job easier. The fourth is a very quick brush together of the two conversions to show that the 5DII has enough dynamic range to produce a stupid picture where the shaded foreground is lighter than the sky.

I do agree that the 5DII is not as good in this respect as cameras such as the 1DsIII, and certainly nothing like as good as the 6D, but it is more than adequate for what I wish to do.

You silly insult from prior post is mere water on my Exmor duck. Don't waste your energy, save it for the photoshop work you need to do on your images.   :P

Your dark areas, as presented, in this "dark" shot are still varying from a low of 1 or 2 to 5 or 6.  So you may not have quite hit the noise floor.
AND you might have a good copy of a 5D2. Jeez, my early model had MIDtone banding when viewed 1:1!

35
Yeh, you can't do that with a Canon..........

HAHA!

Do you expect me to take your example seriously?!?

C'mon, in my example the "pushed" shadow areas are still darker than the shadow areas in your "before" shot!  ;D
You're not in a DR-limited scene.  Other than the sun being in frame, that's some might flat dull scenery.

A large part of the lower right corner of my before shot is rendered RGB (0-255) 0,0,0 by the camera's internal jpg engine.  In the after shot it's brought up the the mid-20s on average.
Your before shot dark area is about 11,17,20 brought up to about 22,35,42 in the after shot.

My Sol glint is not even clipped in the before shot; 248,247,218 is about the brightest pixel in the small image.  In the after shot, it's still 249,246,212 so I'm not pulling my highlights down like in your example either.
My example is a proper ETTR shot to take advantage of the Exmor capabilities; maxing out the exposure at the brightest point in the image and re-curving the entire thing to bring back the tonality that is close to how it was visually perceived.

my after


vs your before


If you want to come up with a good comparison, leave the 1DS3 at home, grab a current Digic 4 or 5 body and see if you can replicate this much DR and recovery in one shot.

Thanks for playing tho. :)

EDIT:  bonus point for picking a similar composition

36
To the OP: let's see you capture a scene that includes the actual sun disc recorded in the EV range and lift shadows from a shaded area with the A7r. This is the only situation in which my Canon gear cannot cope.

Of course you will fail. I know because I have already tried with a D800. That's why myself and hundreds, nay thousands of 'landscape' orientated photographers are still using Canon.

you mean like this one?..
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888
good luck using a Digic 4 or 5 Canon for a shot like the first one, you would not be able to re-tone the image to look like it does to the eye.
How does a Canon user cope with such a shot? Cry and go home? Spend many hours in post, trying to tame the stripes and fix the muddy dark tones to have some sort of semi-realistic texture? HAHAHA!  Bracket?!?  ;D

the last 2 in that post could even be done with a 7D, not that I'd chose one if I had an ABC alternative available.

37
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 27, 2014, 04:37:37 AM »
from a few pages back:

@PBD likes to make points demonstrating with his 1DS 3 but he is, in a way, CHEATING.
Not because of misdirection with his example, but because the 1ds3 is likely the best FF camera, IQ-wise, that Canon's ever made.

It has the best color response I know of, other than the 1000D
It has marginally better dynamic range than most other Canon's.
But, IMO, most importantly, it was PRE-Digic 4!
the FPN issues became a serious problem AFTER digic 3

PBD, you can't make those same examples as effectively with a 5d2, 5d3 or 1dx.
FPN read noise issues are worse with Digic 4 and Digic 5 than they were with the old Digic 3.

You don't see me making bad stripey noise examples with my 40D by pushing shadows.. because it doesn't have the same level of read noise banding problems bodies like the 7D have.
And that's why my 40D is still in my stable, it works, it's cleaner than subsequent models from Canon up until the 70D, and hopefully the 7d2.

Shamefully unfair comparisons.  new cameras do not perform as well as those older ones.

38
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 27, 2014, 03:39:29 AM »
810 doesn't just approach the 5d3, in tech, it pulls out and passes it and flips the bird at it on the way by.

Yes, we all know you think "camera" = "sensor".   Frame rate...5DIII > D810.  AF system...5DIII > D810.
Hmmm, plus:

Canon Lenses > Nikon Lenses, ML at Canon > ML at Nikon .... ohhhhh wait  :o

Why do you say that out of curiosity?  Don't get me wrong, I'm somebody who almost went the Nikon route but ultimately went with Cannon, however I keep running across assessments that Nikon and Cannon both have excellent and nearly equivalent quality (overall) lens offerings.

There are a few things that Cannon offers that Nikon doesn't (ie: I get the impression that Cannon is better when it comes to macro offerings) and visa versa (Nikon has traditionally had more to offer with Wide Angle lenses... particularly UWA zooms).
Maybe for reasons like this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=618&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
Bryan's good at buying 4 of 5 iterations of a Canon lens and keeping the best one. I doubt he does that with his Nikon kit.
I had said Canon lens and mine had far more CA in the FF corners than this demo
I have the 70-200/4vr Nikon lens and it renders vast amounts of detail to a d800e without any significant CA.
The point is, almost all the lenses these days are damn good and there can be more variation within items of the same model than between mfrs at times.
I don't have any Nik lenses I can complain about, I chose wisely.

39
5D Mark III got the job done.  I'm happy with my choice of "tools".
Mustang Sunrise Photo Tour CCA 2014 Sun1099 © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal Photography, on Flickr

Keith, those are some nice images but I'm gonna be tough on you here.  Even to my old eyes the shadow tones in the mustang shot look full of canon chroma noise and stripes.  Not in this little dinky downscaled shot within this thread, but the 2 & 3MP "large" version available on flikr.
And they are, you don't even have to push anything to see it, just look between the 2 photog's on the R side.

Sorry, tools like that do not meet my standards of image quality, not when they come with that kind of price tag.
If you're happy with them, great.  But image quality like this is the reason I dumped Canon and went to ABC cameras.
Most people likely would not notice the noise, I sure do, much as I listen to the silence between the music.

A crop and 2x linear with some gamma shift to make it obvious for those who can't see it in the original.
Maybe I'm just getting spoiled looking at super clean ABC shadow tones for the last couple years, this now jumps out at me in some shots.

EDIT:  typos fixed, minor change in wording

40
Photography Technique / Re: Why 3:2 aspect ratio?
« on: September 26, 2014, 06:30:54 PM »
I like 3x2 and 2x3 for lots of landscape and natural images.
the 4x5 ratio looks good for many portraits and other images I will crop to what best suits the overall image balance.

There's a very limited edition skyline panorama I've done that didn't look quite right at 36x12"
Changed it to 36 x 11.25 and viola!  masterpiece!
Sometimes it can be that subtle.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 26, 2014, 02:56:29 AM »
MIDTONE banding with gray fog and blue skies are where i first noticed problems with Canon images when I had my 5d2, ages ago.
Shadow pushing landscapes with every Digic 4 body showed me the FPN issues in shadows.
Quick testing of my 5d2 showed me that FPN was readily visible in smooth shades only 2 or 3 EV below metered middle if pushed only +1 stop.
I still maintain it was the most disappointing body I ever had, and possibly a lemon but... there were more of them out there like that.


I'm feeling somewhat vindicated by so many more of you, some who've previously argued against these very observations, corroborating this problem.
My only question is, WTH took so long for some users of same equipment to notice this?!?  ???

EDIT:  To answer PBD, you probably could push the 70D files by 3 stops and not be bothered by FPN but you'd still have plenty of shot nose to get rid of and that will eat some of the detail in NR software.  the 7d2 might perform similarly.  the 6D would get away with it in some shots, as will the 60D as I've done it for some shots with acceptable results. Other digic 4 bodies, not likely as capable.  older digic 2 and 3 bodies would behave a bit like the 70D and allow a good push in many cases but would have even greater overall noise levels to deal with.

42
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Invested In 3 Different Systems
« on: September 26, 2014, 12:02:33 AM »
..I am now finding that they all have their respective uses for what I do. While I understand that it is not necessary to have all of it to get the job done, it is nice to have the option of choosing the best tool for the job when needed..

They're all similar, but different and each have their uses.
sez the guy using Nikon F, Canon EF/S, Pentax K & Q, Fuji X, MFT + a pile of fixed lens compacts.  No MF, Sony or Samsung for me yet.

43
EOS Bodies / Re: Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:56:41 PM »
Sporgon - nice shot, but I can't actually tell noise levels in a 0.37 MP image. Also, I prefer not to have horizons that blown, but that's just me.

+1
could've retained more color near the horizon by reducing exposure and bring up the rest a bit more IF you had shot that with an Exmor.  Not that you HAVE to, it would just provide you with that option, should you choose to use it.

44
Canon General / Re: DRones vs. anti-DRones: how to resolve the controversy
« on: September 25, 2014, 11:45:26 PM »
..Unless you shoot Nikon, at which point Nikon shooters will argue that 36MP is more than enough and existing DR is plenty, and DXOmark favor Canon.

Well, I can already say my d800s are good enough that I can easily sit out a generation or three of body updates. They provide adequate performance for how I want to use them.
If the rumored organic sensor comes out from the Panasonic-Fuji collaboration that will be interesting.
And I'm looking forward to trying the 7d2 and it's funky new AF system.  Speaking of which, the DP AF should be a feature on the hi-rez metering sensor as well, that could REALLY help with the AF performance.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Says Higher Resolution Sensors Are Coming Soon
« on: September 25, 2014, 01:58:07 AM »
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. :P

HAHA!  reminds me of another camera maker saying something like, "What are you talking about?  There's no dust or oil spot issue with our camera."

This is like politics, they have to tell the not-truth enough so that (many) people will (continue to) believe it.
it would NOT be good for stock price for Canon to admit their sensors are in any way behind in any performance metric.
It's all about the money, first.  product and customers are secondary, even if they do have great service.
That said, I'm looking fwd to trying the 7d2, even if it's not quite as good, IQ-wise, as my micro-four-thirds.  As long as the FPN is gone, i can use it.

Edit: well, IQ-wise I still prefer the bigger pixels from my 60D than from my MFT as the also larger long Canon lens I use with it outperforms the tiny miracle on my MFT.  But the noise metrics on the MFT are obviously better.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 70