June 20, 2013, 08:06:29 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 39
376
The cost/quality of my gear does help to some degree, but it's not been a proportional growth, no... I feel that I would have grown nearly as much if I had stuck with my Digital Rebel and Tamron super-zoom.

Yes, gear with fewer limitations provides more room to learn and push your own creative boundaries farther out.

much more improve when you are master at photoshop LOL

Good RAW shot from camera will help alot.........don't you think?

Raw files and the increased flexibility of post-processing with all kinds of software is the biggest area of my improvements.  That was so much harder to do with film!

377
HA!  Not even CLOSE to improving my images at the ratio of the cost difference!
BUT - I now have equipment that covers almost every kind of situation I like to shoot in. No more improvising and getting so-so results; It's nice to have few hardware limitations, I have the right tools for almost every job instead of constantly adapting a limited set of resources to fill a requirement.  The latter, however, can lead to more creativity.

So, altho the technical IQ of my digital files has improved immensely over PnS digicams I used when I first went digital, the actual artistic merit part has improved only incrementally.  Part of that could be the 25 years of experience shooting film, followed by 5+ years stretching the limits of PnS digicams before I bought a 40D and entered the DSLR world with that.

The 40D was the first DSLR where i thought I was finally getting adequate features and performance for the price.

Before that I had balked at paying the price when Canon introduced the PowerShot G3.  In retrospect, if I WOULD have purchased the G3 when it was new, its outstanding IQ would have prevented me from buying a slew of cheaper compact digicams and could have delayed my DSLR purchase beyond the 40D.  My equipment path could have been quite different from what it is now.  A $1000 back then could have saved me many times more than that over the same time frame.  But all the fun I'd have missed...
FYI - I currently own 4 G3s, and use 3 of them regularly for various purposes.
Hmmmm...  :o

378
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d noise question is it normal?
« on: August 28, 2012, 02:14:12 AM »
..
One thing is for sure, though...the 7D is at a disadvantage with noise when it comes to large areas of constant tone or smoothly graded tone. Cameras with larger pixels tend to do significantly better than the 7D in this area. The 7D suffers at low ISO due to read noise and at higher ISO more than others due to the random nature of light, so bokeh, blue sky, or an medium-toned solid color surface or smooth gradient will look noisier on the 7D than on other cameras. Wherever you have useful detail, particularly with a higher signal (40-50% saturation or more), the 7D's IQ is great. The noisy nature of the 7D's bokeh, however, can have a significant impact on IQ. Canon really needs to boost the quantum efficiency of the 7D's successor to around 60% or more...either with some form of improved microlens or maybe a layered microlens structure, a backilluminated design, or some form of efficient thermal cooling (or all of the above!) A higher Q.E. will greatly help SNR, which should produce cleaner results in the midtones, resulting in much improved IQ at ISO 400+.
..

 Yes, the 7D is a terrific camera, handicapped by noise at times, but still does a mostly good job when you play on its strengths.

Some of us have 7D bodies with more annoying pattern noise than others.

At times the dual-readout circuitry, responsible for the 7D attaining its high fps, contributes to a particularly annoying vertical banding effect where lines form in groups 8 pixels wide.  This is usually only noticeable in low signal, or shadow, areas.  It's very difficult to minimize the appearance of this kind of banding noise and it can become an obvious detrimental artifact in a large print.

Using the ETTR (expose to the right) method you can help reduce the effect of the banding if your camera is prone to it. It also seems the 7D may be slightly more tolerant of a bit of over exposure than some other bodies I've used.
And, since its noise characteristic becomes less apparently patterned at higher ISOs, you can push the ISO up a stop, ETTR a bit, then bring it back down in post.. IF you have enough light/fast enough lens to work with.

Some experimentation with shooting conditions will help you learn how to get the best results from it.


Years ago I read about a technology known as "black silicon." I've been hoping it would get put to use in camera sensors.  When you look at the sensor, it's obviously reflecting a considerably amount of mostly green light.  Those reflected photons could be better utilized if they stayed in the sensor to generate electrons of signal instead.  Apparently we don't quite need to push the tech to this point yet as Sony's Exmor is doing a pretty impressive job already and any improvements on that are going to be incremental and possibly diminishing returns on R&D.

379
Abstract / Re: Light Painting!
« on: August 27, 2012, 08:22:52 PM »
I LIKE it!
 dark, yet whimsical

380
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 27, 2012, 08:22:08 PM »
I didn't have problems with noise in my shots, they were with a 5D MkIII, no problems with a MkII either. That's what grad filters are for.

I like the shots you posted, which look like NDgrad at capture?..

When possible I'd rather apply ND grad in post.  The first sunset shot I posted used 2 mild ones applied in LR3 + fill light and +EV.

The other 2 shots have NO filters, capture or post, just color and contrast.  I was shooting fast, got about a dozen wicked images in about 2 minutes, various orientations, while also hand-holding my 60D which I used for about 50 shots over a longer period.  I can't wing an ND grad that fast if I wanted to.  The 60D's shots all look great too, no need to push any shadows all the time.

That first shot tho - I know no way in hades my 5D2 could do that. It's too noisy.  Push 2 EV with it and it's already showing plaid shadows.

381
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 27, 2012, 11:53:01 AM »
@Aglet - from what?  ;D I mean the first "from"

Haha!  ;D
That's the beauty of using a system with super low noise; take one shot exposed to not clip the highlight areas and bring the rest back in post for an HDR effect without having to try bracket a physically changing scene.

I can't do this kind of shot with my Canon gear without running into serious noise problems in the darker areas. My 7D and 5D2 are terrible at this kind of work. 5D3 isn't much better than 5D2 from my limited testing.  Hopefully a few FF body from Canon with improve this.

In fact, I can continue to push the exposure curve in that first shot to the point that the beach in the lower right corner is up to midtones will full detail and only a bit of chroma noise than can be processed out. An impressive imaging machine, that's why I bought one and that's whey my Canon gear gets used less.

382
Landscape / Re: Beautiful sunsets
« on: August 27, 2012, 01:40:30 AM »
Single shot HDR from Nikon D800 taken at Lesser Slave Lake, Alberta, Canada. Summer 2012.
Original jpg from camera is below.

A few more as well from awesome post-storm sunset.

383
EOS Bodies / Re: 7d noise question is it normal?
« on: August 26, 2012, 03:53:56 AM »
Here are some pictures made with my 7D using the same settings like in your exif data. The pics are at 100% in RAW without any PP applied. the noise lvl is much lower....

your 7D is showing a bit of vertical banding noise even in the light areas. some bodies are worse, some are quite good.

Mine can be pretty bad too - but it's variable and I'm working on finding the cause of the variability which I've also identified in a 60D body.

I'm also finding spot AF, center point, servo, works good for BIF even with my slow old 100-400mm L
I don't remember the custom parameters right now, I adjusted them all to work with faster moving stuff for work with birds and bugs.

Agree w RLPhoto, turn off all in-camera processing. Save it for post where it works better and doesn't slow down your camera.

384
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 25, 2012, 05:53:04 AM »
While these are interesting, They don't showcase anything that couldn't be done on a d30. :P
HA!
Nice try. ;D

That's only +2 EV and 63% fill light on Adobe ACR 6.7
Either of those settings alone can show up banding noise in dark areas in some low ISO canon raw files. (I'm discovering there's sometimes more to it than that tho, can vary with Canon shutter speed)
Addenda: I can actually drag fill light to 100 to start to blow out the sand in the LR corner and it only shows a little chroma noise that could be removed with basic NR and still show plenty of detail.

I'd LOVE it if my 5D2 came out this clean at those settings.

check my tech blog for the dark noise comparison if you want to see impressive lens caps shots.

2 samples at ISO 3200 from D800 removed August 26th.

385
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2012, 11:29:50 AM »
I'd really prefer if ANY camera company added a metering mode that figured out how to get the maximum quantity of photons into eachphotosite while avoiding color channel blowout..

Canon's color matrix metering, starting in the 7D I think, I find works much better than the previous metering systems when it comes to tricky compositions with lots of color.  I find I don't often have to compensate at all, many times, and when I do, it's considerably less than I had to with the previous, non-color reading metering systems.  Force of habit often has me adjusting -2/3 EV which I end up putting back in as +2/3 in post.

Having an ETTR until one color channel starts to clip option in the metering menu would be a nice touch. I requested this from the Magic Lantern guys but don't know if it ever showed up.

386
EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting leveled landscape pictures
« on: August 24, 2012, 01:09:01 AM »
Or to quote from that Luminous Landscape article:
"Relax, Bors. The landscape isn't going anywhere."

No, but the light is. And I'm not saying don't spend 20 seconds making sure it's level. I'm just saying get it close and then tweak it as needed. It's an important element to get right in the field, but not at the expense of paying attention to other things. I just don't see the need for a specialized level like that.

Well, if that works for you. :)
I won't harp on it, you've got some fine examples on your photoblog.

I've occasionally rushed to capture the light and had to level in post.
And occasionally I've missed the light setting up my tripod.
But if I have the time, I'll utilize all the precision my equipment will afford me.  And I'm still learning to slow down and be deliberate and try to create art after decades of rushing to capture fleeting moments with documentary precision.

387
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:58:06 AM »
aglet, I've been reading your posts a bit now. Can you post some of your D800 Photos here?

I was saving some good examples to post on my web site but, considering how laggard I've been updating it this summer, i could maybe post a little something here.
Altho, really, the most impressive is the inside of a black lens cap, shot at 1/200s, f/16, in a dark room and pushed 4 stops in post.  ;)

Anything specific you'd like to see? I haven't been able to get out and shoot much with it, despite intents.

I've got an ISO 3200 close-up of and ant I took when I first got it and was playing around with it in the back yard.
It's kind of impressive considering very little NR was used.

I took a few colorful, post-storm, sunset-silhouette shots at Lesser Slave Lake AB last month.  They were done with a D800 and ancient 20mm lens at ISO 400 but that doesn't really showcase its abilities. Even Canon bodies can shoot great sunsets and I proceeded to shoot dozens more of them with my 60D after taking a few shots with the 800, all of them more impressive than those I shot with the D800.

I DO have a landscape of sorts tho, where extreme shadow pushing in post yields a nice HDR type effect covering a Dynamic Range from sunlit cumulus clouds to the texture of charcoal in shade.  With ZERO NR applied and no noise visible in the pushed shadows.  Similar shot from my 60D is already on this site in the HDR gallery, near the bottom of page 2 -
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8065.15

The other one with the charcoal is a bit more extreme.  I intend to prep that one for a poster.

2 images posted in response to RLPhoto removed August 26th.

388
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:05:14 AM »
If by normal you mean about the same as Nikon I would agree with you. (why do I get the sneaky feeling you may not agree with me  ;D ;D ;D ;D)

I have to agree, from what I see published on some web sites testing these cameras, the SNR of all the top line cameras is pretty similar across their ISO range.

In an apparently stunning turn, the D800's SNR is even lower than that of the 5D2.
If you compare the curves on DxOmark's website tho, the results are different than the techradar site supposedly using DxO testing software. Big difference in DR results.  So who's doing it properly?  Neither completely explains their methodology to anyone's satisfaction.

That same article sparked some lively debate before about the merit and validity of DxO's testing.
It only tells me that anyone can buy DxO's testing software and rig but do they really apply it properly?

I'll take DxO's testing on their site, thank you.  They build the stuff, they otta know how to use it properly and consistently. There the Canon's have an edge in SNR, tho I still don't know how they're testing it, the specifics.

But I'll take the worse reported SNR of the D800 over the low ISO noise of any Canon product to date because it's less visible. MUCH less visible.  And any bloke with access to both cameras can determine that quite readily with little more than Photoshop and ACR (or Lightroom) and a lenscap.  ;)

389
EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting leveled landscape pictures
« on: August 23, 2012, 10:08:48 PM »
I never use the electronic level on my 7D - far too sensitive, nor the bubble spirit-levels on my tripod or monopod, instead, I find it easier to correct in post with the Ruler tool in PS. Your time is better spent getting your composition & exposure correct than your camera level.

+1

-1.3

SERIOUSLY?!?... :o

That's like, "I only taxi my airplane cuz I don't want to fly."

Now one certainly doesn't need to perfectly level every shot, but if you're shooting landscapes, I'm sure you could spend a few seconds to level your camera, especially if you're on a tripod.  Helps to maximize what your get from your final image in post.

390
EOS Bodies / Re: Shooting leveled landscape pictures
« on: August 23, 2012, 12:39:33 PM »
Both of my D5100s are off by nearly 1 degree in the same direction!  I didn't notice it for a while until I started shooting some water scenes.  I wasn't using liveview and the on-screen gridlines as I was trying to conserve what was left of my battery for more shots. So I leveled the water horizon carefully to the outermost AF points.  All those shots were consistently clockwise from level by about 0.8 degrees.  ARGHH! I've yet to send them in to see if they can straighten them out, likely the reflex mirror is a bit tilted as everything else seems to be optically well aligned. 

Minor random point, but it's unlikely to be the reflex mirror (light for AF passes through portions of the reflex mirror that are beam splitters).  Most likely, the focus screen is not straight - could be the mounting bracket is off, or the screen isn't seated properly.  Not sure if the D5100 has a user-replaceable focus screen, but if so, you could try adjusting that.
+1 a focus screen not properly seated can cause all sorts of issues with focus too.

I don't know if the 5100s focus screen is interchangeable, I haven't checked.
But here's what I've done to check the relative alignment of things.

I've spent some time trying to find the cause of the problem before I send it in to Nikon.


I've tested 5 D5100 bodies, 2 of my own.
4 of them had significant right-rotation issues of between 0.5 and 1 degree.
1 (store demo) was nearly perfect.


First, i set up a 3 ft straightedge (construction level) on a table, leveled it then aligned a heavy tripod with geared head, etc. to test the cameras.   I used an old Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 macro lens, chipped for modern body metering compatibility, for the tests; It's an excellent lens, very flat-field and very low distortion.

I aligned the outer AF points to the straightedge then used the gearhead's vertical axis to compare the AF points to the viewfinder top and bottom edges.  No discernable misalignment, essentially parallel.

turn on live-view and electronic alignment grid.
The straight-edge, aligned to the viewfinder edges and outer AF points, is now tilted relative to the electronic grid lines.

That determined the viewfinder/AF point misalignment to the sensor.

I then set a D5100 on a gear head tripod and lined it up as well as I could and took photos of the body and mount/mirror-box, mirror down and then locked up, using a Rebel with a 60mm macro on it.  With the lenses and mounts as parallel and coaxial as I could align them, I took a few shots to examine in more detail in PS.

This last part was not the most precise type of measurement I could hope for but what I found was that the top and bottom of the D5100's sensors were also about perfectly parallel to the camera body base.
Sensors were also in good alignment to the mirror-box edges.

What I think I could see though, was a slight angular difference between the edge of the camera body (and hence the sensor) and the edge of the lowered mirror.  This was about half the angle of the overall rotational error. (overall error = 2x mirror-angle-error seems to make sense)

I can not adequately check whether the whole penta-mirror+viewfinder assembly is in proper alignment to the mirror box.

When examining what a I can see of the mirror pivot points, actuation and return spring, there's enough asymmetry there that, considering the cost-point of the camera, it's possible for the return spring to slightly lift one side of the mirror and cause a bit of a tilt in the viewed image versus the sensor-acquired image.

I also tested the AF point accuracy while I was at it, more out of curiousity as I often use the 5100 for macro and close-up work.
Using the finely adjustable 105mm macro lens (LOVE those smooth old manual lenses!) I manually focused a target under each AF point to get the AF confirm lamp to stay on, then checked the focus using magnified live view.  Every one is impressively spot-on.

With all that done, about the only conclusion I can draw is that the mirror hinge points on either side are slightly out of alignment or the whole focus-screen viewfinder assembly is a bit out of alignment.
Either way, at this time I don't know enough about the camera's construction to mess around with it and, since they've got plenty of warranty left, I'm going to send one in for repair and see if they can accomplish a fix.  If successful, they can work on the second one.

I also found that Imaging-resource noticed this same problem when reviewing a 5100 for their site and a few similar complaints scattered around some photography forums.  When speaking to Nikon, I did not expect them to confirm a known problem of this sort, and they did not. But the person I spoke to eagerly encouraged me to send it in. marked for his attention.  I'll do that next week.

Since I had all the equipment set up, I then tested all my camera bodies for viewfinder to live-view level accuracy and also compared all the cameras I have with in-body electronic artificial horizon ability to the construction level.  This is how I found that all my Canon's were very good or at least close-enough to rely on, and my D800 has a slight calibration error.  But now that I know what the D800's error is I have a method to compensate for it in the field that is very quick and provides acceptable results.

Yup, being horizonally challenged caused me to spend a few hours doing this but that's provided me with useful information to get the best level out of my equipment in the field and leaves me with nothing to blame other than myself for not getting it right. 
Except for the D5100s; I can still blame them!  :D
They've got no easy way to compensate for the rotational error except for me to remember to do the entire composition then try to judge how much to rotate the body to make the image come out where I want it to.  Or use live-view a lot more and run my batteries down much faster.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 39