October 31, 2014, 03:57:01 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
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 02:08:08 AM »
Maybe some things were just my ignorance of Nikon but I could not find a way to give me BOTH 1 finger access to changing ISO AND 1 finger access to using exposure compensation. It seemed it was an either or thing.

Did you give up before looking at the menus?  You can customize the controls to a great extent.

I have my d800s' rear control dial programmed to be direct ISO control and the front dial is for aperture in AV mode.
Press +/- button and rear wheel is EV comp.  I think you can flip those functions as well, if you prefer.
And you can define the controls differently for different modes if you like, very flexible but not as intuitive as Canon's more defined default approach.

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why would Canon pick this combo?
« on: October 01, 2014, 01:50:17 AM »
Maybe they think if you purchase a L lens you may be motivated to purchase a FF camera in the future.
They lost me as a customer some time back with the disappointing performance of the 5d2.
They may snag others coming in to the game tho.

33
But I did just that a few pages ago with a 5DII - dig!c 4.

And thank-you for doing so.
You provided me with the opportunity to see that at least some 5d2s could perform fairly well in this manner.
Tho without having the actual file to play with and not knowing the exact processing parameters it doesn't address all doubts that's it's as good as a pre-Digic 4 bodies for base ISO FPN.

Quote
In my experience the Dig!c 4 cameras do have more FPN that both the earlier and later versions but it is buried so deep that it is just irrelevant 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people.

Well, with that admitted I can only add that I continue to suspect some Digic 4 bodies were better than others.
I know my 5d2 was a disappointing performer in this regard.  I still got lots of good images from it but I could not use it for the kinds of shooting I expected to from a camera at that price point.  Ironic since my much cheaper, older 40D was able to provide better files with respect to low ISO FPN.
When I did a quick test and found the 5d3 was really no better than my 5d2, disappointment continued.
A very stripey 7D did not improve my opinion of this aspect of their cameras.

Altho overall SNR has improved only slightly at base ISO for recent models like the 70D and 6D, I'm glad to see visible reductions in FPN over the previous couple generations.  If Canon can at least keep the FPN out of the raw files, it makes a big difference even if overall SNR and DR are still below Exmor levels.

34
Saying "it depends on what they shoot" works both ways.  The list of photographers I made represents an extremely diverse range of shooting conditions, subjects and styles.  Their work is out there for anyone to see.  The work of antonymous sensor critics on the internet is ... not as visible.  So claiming to having higher image quality standards than some of the best photographers on Earth is pretty dubious.

Image quality is, to me, not very subjective.  I'm only considering the results produced by the hardware used.
I'm not alone here with very high quality standards in that regard.
If you haven't run into such hardware limitations you're staying within your handicap.  If you're using various workarounds "that have been around for a century" then you're accepting a compromise or exercising an artistic choice to work within those limitations.
Some of us have artistic choices that require better hardware with less limitations to fulfill.  That's how progress happens.


Quote
No doubt some of those photographers have complained about things they wish to be improved, and yet they still shoot Canon.  Perhaps they know more about image quality than anonymous critics on the internet.

pure speculation


Quote
No one said that Canon is perfect and no one says "how dare you not declare so and so brand to be perfect".  Describing people as getting defensive or agitated about "how dare you not declare so and so brand to be perfect" is just a big, fat, empty straw man of an argument, just a deliberate misrepresentation of what people are actually saying in this thread. 

I think he was paraphrasing.

Some people here react to this debate far too emotionally, with lots of passion and only a few facts.
The OP has not only shown examples, he's also provided his raw data and used a lot of his personal time and resources to do so, only to receive insult on top of (literal) injury.
Some of us have bolstered his findings with more examples.
Point is, these are facts, not opinions, about sensor system capabilities of Canon vs Sony.
It can be summarized as such:
- Canon is good enough
- Exmor is excellent
... in the one sensor metric where they differ substantially, low iso SNR and FPN.

35
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why would Canon pick this combo?
« on: September 30, 2014, 03:05:54 PM »
I'm on that Canadian pre-order kit too.
It's a good enough deal that even after the body price drops and, I suspect, the lens price will be reduce significantly too for some yet unknown reason, that you'll still have a better value than buying separate or will allow you to sell without loss.

36
over at IR

www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/09/27/photokina-interview-samsung-nx1-redefine-pro-performance-quantum-leap-tech

seems they've done some careful thinking about their approach to the system and will be interesting to see how it plays out

37
Technical Support / Re: 6D pattern on image?
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:36:24 AM »
There appears to be faint horizontal banding, nothing surprising.
But yes, do confirm that with some other shots.
Then you'll know whether or not to ....  Oh, I was just gonna wisecrack here but I feel your pain.

38
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.

Apparently your standards of image quality are higher than those of photographers who shoot with Canon ... Sam Abell, David Burnett, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Lauren Greenfield, Gregory Heisler, David Hume Kennerly, Douglas Kirkland, Antonin Kratochvil, Vincent Laforet, Annie Liebovitz, Don McCullin, Eric Meola, Peter Read Miller, James Nachtwey, Martin Parr, Paolo Pellegrin, Denis Reggie, Sebastiao Salgado, Mario Sorrenti, Pete Souza, Joyce Tenneson, Damon Winter, etc.  I know some of them don't shoot Canon exclusively, but with all of the talk about Canon's poor sensors, it's a wonder they shoot Canon at all.  Those folks just don't have image quality standards like you do, or maybe they just photograph easy-peasy stuff without too much dynamic range. ;)

My standards ARE high.  Is that a bad thing?

When I see a great image, like the one a few pages back, that's marred by muddy shadows full of chroma noise and banding that I find obvious even at a 2 and 3 MP reduction, there's a problem with the CAMERA, not the photographer.
See and think for yourself, spewing a bunch of random names is meaningless to me and pointless to your argument if these are supposed to be pros.  Many big name pros have an army of photoshop'ers working behind the scenes to fix the problems.
While you're at it, why didn't you include Joe McNally?  There's a guy who knows how to use light to make an image, whatever gear he's using.  Canon likely bought him off with a crate of RT600s, saves him a bunch of setup time but I wonder if he's secretly using Nikon when he's alone in the woods... ;)

39
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.

40
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

41
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

42
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!

43
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

44
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.

45
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.

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