March 01, 2015, 06:13:39 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 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 75
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 22, 2014, 03:01:47 AM » are basically referring to DSLR cameras that were released between February 2005 to August 2010.

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.

7D non-pushed

and crop from same slightly pushed file in DPP

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found the fpn from the 5D MkII and 7D to be particularly problematic are the ones who tended to underexpose, which is outdated advice originally intended to preserve highlights from clipping..

I don't understand how that is outdated advice.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.

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.

.. 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.

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.

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.

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.

PowerShot / Re: need help deciding:To canon or not to canon
« on: February 18, 2014, 03:11:27 PM »
I see you've at least considered Fuji, that's good. :)  The xe2 is a really nice camera, I wish it had a tilting display tho.
However, if you can do without the very nice EVF, the X-A1 and X-M1 with 16-50mm are also really good options for $500-600 and they do deliver clean 3200 and 6400 right out of camera.
small, light, tilting screen, x-mount if you ever want to add glass
the menu interface is different but easy enough to figure out in a short while and there's a surprising lot of useful functionality you can customize
I like mine, and am looking forward to my X-T1, with this video only adding to the urgency.

EOS-M / Re: Is the canon eos-m a dead end system?
« on: February 17, 2014, 04:32:41 AM »
The M's not dead but... until they improve it to be competitive with the likes of Sony, Fuji, and Olympus, there's little point to having one, IMO... I'd rather use a G1x2 and not have to carry lenses.  Now if they don't overprice the G1x2...  it'll be a very interesting option.

The G1x2 development story was an interesting read.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it will really perform.
Looks like they've tucked in a sensor that's very close to micro-four-thirds size in order to meet the ambitious lens specs.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
I actually think they've done a good evaluation of what a high end fixed-lens almost-compact camera should be and built it accordingly.

When the original G1x came out I was really temped to buy one, as carrying it, and also the smaller G11/12, would cover almost every still type shot I would encounter while on the road.  Sadly, I found the IQ a bit too lacking in the G1x so decided to skip it.  This v2, however, I will be looking at more closely.  I've always had a fondness for nice compact cameras. (as I look at my table with 8 PowerShot G-series cameras sitting on it.. anyone have the number for the addictions hotline? ;) )

Portrait / Re: Post photos of other photographers in action
« on: February 16, 2014, 05:34:23 PM »
My friend and mentor, under the hood. :)

Looks like there's gonna be some serious butt-kickin' mirrorless crop cameras to choose from in 2014!

As much as I am excited by the prospect of using Fuji's new xt1, excited enough to have pre-ordered one, this new Sony sports a higher res sensor, AF with more coverage and claims to be the fastest.
AND an impressive price tag! (half the price of the Fuji for body alone)

Now I've never paid much attention to Sony for still cameras, and from what I hear, they're still lacking a good lens selection, but bodies like this are going to attract photo enthusiasts' interest like Katy Perry in latex would attract oglers.
Add in-body stabilization to a feature set like the a6000 and we'll almost have it all.

If Pentax is wondering what to build to replace the K-01, the Sony and Fuji would be a good foundation.  But DO make the register distance short enough to adapt all other lenses; K-mount is too restrictive that way.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 09:07:35 PM »
Anyway, it was five stops under exposed and..just displays your complete lack of post processing ability.
5... That's pretty good, and you certainly know how to make good use of Photoshop to clean it up.

I'd have no hesitation about pushing files from your 1ds3, a camera with a rep as one of the better low ISO performers made, or even my faithful old 40d. (anyone ever hear me complain about my 40D?)

But there are only 2 bodies I've experienced that are horridly noisy; the 7D, and the 5D2 that I had.

I'd like to see what you can do to try a stripey 7D file under the same conditions, and see how much work you'd have to put in, and what kind of results could be obtained.

Even doing this as a proof does not exempt the fact that some bodies have a lot of FPN and are not suitable for any push-processing in post, certainly not if you have to do a lot of that.  Unfortunately for me, I had both of those bandy bodies and stupidly kept them when I should have just returned them.  They did have some other redeeming features, and still provided plenty of usable shots, but frustrated the &%^$*$@#! out of me when I had to push low ISO files.

And yes, I'm no Photoshop guru, but neither should I have to be.  Far quicker and better for future-proofing to just choose better tools that don't require me to fix such things in post.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Here is what Earth looks like from Mars
« on: February 09, 2014, 04:06:45 PM »
speaking of the view from space, here's a concise quote

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 7D vs. 70D: Which has better image quality?
« on: February 09, 2014, 04:02:22 PM »
So all in all (pattern) noise of Canon sensors can be a problem under specific and rather exceptional circumstances. Scenes with a dynamic range between 11 and 13 stops where bracketing (hdr) isn’t an option, you don’t want blown highlights and still need to push the shadows more than 2 stops.
I don't think we're really arguing from opposite directions here. :)
I have plenty of good images taken with the lower DR Canons and find I can even push shadows from my 60D a reasonable amount before banding is a problem.  My 40D files can be pushed even futher if needed.
My kind of landscape shooting often requires some DR compression to make into a suitable print, especially if the print is to be displayed in low lighting conditions.  FWIW, my 60D has provided me with the greatest number of excellent sunlit landscape files so far.

Banding on my 7D it was much worse and my 5d2 sometimes showed banding in smooth midtones or even slightly raised lower midtones.  I just wrote the latter two off as inadequate for my needs and got rid of them.  I was really disappointed with the low ISO performance of both of those cameras, to put it mildly.  They were fine for high ISO.
To replace the 5d2, the d800 was the better choice for my kind of shooting at the time and I will retain them until I find some shortcoming ... none as yet unless I count the oil blobs that ended up on my sensors after a 1000+ shots.
I'm still waiting for a 7D replacement option, primarily for advanced AF and speed but also has to have good low ISO performance, if possible.  The 70D almost fits that gap but I actually want a step up in AF performance from the original, and very good, 7D.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 09, 2014, 12:25:02 AM »
Here is a pretty crappy image shot with a completely outdated tech Canon sensor, that many posters here will adamantly tell you is impossible to do. Now I know it is no award winner, but I also know it would get me out of the sh-t if it was an important moment. I just thought it might be interesting to post an actual photographic example of the appallingly bad Canon tech.

Anybody care to guess how many stops under exposed the image was? It was at a wedding reception and the on camera flash that I was bouncing hadn't recharged in time, so did not fire.

OK, it's pushed fairly hard, hugely downsampled so hard to tell what body it came from.
But, whatever body it did come from exhibits horizontal and vertical banding almost evenly at the conditions of that shot and it's showing up as magenta crosshatch on her neck and some other areas.  So it could be any brand of camera at this point.

In a bit of a leap I'd say its from an old digic 2, possibly digic 3 body, maybe a 20D or an early Rebel?

From the histogram, the red and green channels are showing a lot of quantization stretch, so you've pulled this from pretty low down and from likely moderate ISO.
maybe 800 to 1600, depending on the body.

With some of your PS talent you could still make a passable print out of this, ultimate IQ rarely required for portraits.

Exif is scrubbed except for "Ducky" and "Photoshop 3.08" ...

Heh!  what kind of surprise are you tryin' t' pull here, bub?
let's see you try that with a digic 4 camera ;)

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:39:24 PM »
Yep, silly me, trying to defuse the photography gear forum bitchfest with an actual photo, shan't make that mistake again!
Oh ya, we almost forgot, you posted a pushed photo!
OK, tell us what it's from, ISO, processing done, and how reduced it is in size.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:37:19 PM »
FPN = Five-stops Pushed Noise
you are wrong again, it's FOUR stops ;)

Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25 26 ... 75