Messages

421

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon 7D, 5D2 or wait for cheap FF body from Canon?

« on: July 27, 2012, 08:02:08 PM »

I agree w previous poster, try get a competent cropper like the 7D or even 60D and keep saving for a FF, hopefully the next one to be announced will be worth it.  If not, used 5D2's are out there for about $1600 and there's nothing wrong with its AF, especially compared to the 1000D, that's something I mount on fence-posts to get picked at by buzzards while waiting for a lighting strike. 

422

Software & Accessories / Re: Any Apple Aperture users? Please chime in!

« on: July 27, 2012, 07:56:24 PM »

I run an i7 iMac and use nearly everything BUT Aperture.  Whenever I try demos it chokes and crashes too often so I haven't even been able to get a sense of how well it works.

I do most of my work in Canon's free Digital Photo Pro.
When i need to do something DPP can't then I use DxO 6 & 7, Lightroom 3, Photoshop Ext. with Nik Suite and Topaz suite of add-ons. 

DxO doesn't have as many i-p & o-p file formats so a bit of a kink in possible workflow.  Free demo is worth trying.
I tried early LR 4 demo (pre-release) and haven't tried it since, performance was very sluggish but it did work well.

On One Software's suite I've demo'd a couple times with poor experiences on Mac as well.
Not sure if PhotoMechanic is available for Mac but my event-shooting buddy relies on it with his wintel laptop.

DPP, LR, DxO and PS.
If I had to (just) pick one that I had to pay for, it'd be Lightroom, does wonders for the price.

423

Lenses / Re: Advice before buying used 15-85 EF-S

« on: July 26, 2012, 02:05:59 PM »

imo, i would not buy that lens 15-85mm, but save some more money to buy 24-105mm f/4L.

24-105 is too wide for general use on a crop body, and large-heavy

15-85mm is a terrific lens, one of my favorites, it's never been off my 60D.  Touch slow, ya, but 60D has good high ISO performance to cover in most situations and you often want to stop down to near 5.6 most times for more DoF anyway.  It's a great walk-around, really sharp where it counts.

17-55mm is a great lens too, not as capable IS as the newer 15-85mm but you have an extra stop worth of aperture which you can actually make use of on occasion for low light or more background blur.  I rarely use mine tho, the 15-85's wide end is more useful than one might expect.

Also, if you don't really need the IS on a 17-55mm 2.8, have a look at the Tamron, the NON-stabilized version is actually a bit better than the newer OS one and IQ is pretty decent for the $  I'm ordering one for my Nikon's to sort of make up for them not having the great 15-85mm like Canon.

BTW - a friend of mine managed to nab a new 15-85mm at London Drugs in Edmonton this spring on some kind of sale for under $500.  I told him to not even think about it as they were going for more than that used!  He's very happy he's got one on his T2i now.

424

EOS Bodies / Re: Another Spec List for the Entry Level Full Frame EOS

« on: July 26, 2012, 01:37:11 AM »

Let's be wishing for a $1500-1700 new FF with the 7D's AF system.
We may as well dream farther in the desirable direction considering price point rumor of D600 is lower.

As for the 7D's AF system, I had trouble with mine too, but it wasn't the camera or 100-400mm L lens, it coulda been me, thinking the group of AF points/expansion would work better for tracking small fast objects.  NOPE!
Now using spot AF with almost 100% hit rate even with that long slow lens.  Still use expansion mode for tracking larger subjects.
Play with it and practice, read the manual.  Unless there's a hardware problem, the AF on this thing is pretty darn good.  I've started catching insects in flight at times now, If I can keep the AF point on them (dang zig-zaggin' dragonflies!).  Haven't tried any of my Nik's yet to see if they can AF this well, but I got them for landscapin.'

425

EOS Bodies / Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

« on: July 25, 2012, 08:51:16 PM »

LTRLI - I recall when you were examining early raw files from the 5D3, you had some sort of software that allowed you to view individual pixel data levels numerically?..

Any way some stats could be run on that kind of data if one were to make test shots of a white sheet or gray card at various exposures and the variance/mean could be analyzed for different tonal values and yet another way of determining total dynamic range with shadow values set to some level of SNR ?

426

EOS Bodies / Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

« on: July 25, 2012, 08:47:52 PM »

The reason I changed to screen is Dynamic Range doesn't change with the number of megapixels.

I agree, this gives us the best, and IMO, proper way to test low level sensor performance.  It is the closest to the original data
What happens after normalizing to some standard size print is a different result, not necessarily meaningless or irrelevant, but certainly of no use when comparing just sensor performance, an electronics and processing issue.

Normalizing for Dynamic Range simply hides the fact that DxOMark can't fully decode the CR2 files, by making it look like their Dynamic Range reading is changing when it isn't...
Whether the D700 or 5D Mk II is better is an extraneous argument that has nothing to do with the fact that DxOMark cannot fully decode the CR2 file..

I still don't understand why and how you conclude 3rd party raw converters are missing some ability to properly decode Canon's CR2 files.  Please explain

The big difference I've found between them is more to do with de-Bayering and Noise Reduction.  There, DxO and Lightroom used to do a slightly better job compared to DPP from my experience.  Latest DPP actually seems to provide more image (color) detail than DxO but DPP still lags both in NR performance.

Also, the CR2 file produced by a Canon G11 or G12, which, AFAIK, is a SONY sensor equipped camera, exhibits a DR curve more like a Nikon than a Canon, complete with excellent base ISO DR about equal to any current Canon DSLR.  Pretty good for tiny pixels!

The only tests I’ve seen that ‘prove’ DxOMark focus on the shadow end and show that using a 3rd party RAW decoder you can pull more shadow detail out of D800 or other Sony sensored cameras. Shadow recover is shadow recovery, and only addresses half of the Dynamic Range of the camera, which includes highlight retention too.

I somewhat agree, highlite retention ability is part of the equation.
However, total DR is a ratio of the highest recordable EV (hilite) to the lowest recordable EV (deep shadow).  Since the lowest recordable EV depends on the Signal to Noise Ratio being set at some arbitrary, but useful limit, below which noise obscures image data, this is the more important end of the DR range.  SNR at hilites is very high so not a factor unless you're evaluating IQ of very small pixel sensors, which we're not.

These deep shadows are where Canon's sensors have trouble with read noise intruding on their signal. It's an electronics design issue.  They chose a particular compromise which works very well except it loses at the shadow end.

I’ve seen no tests that compare the dynamic range of a 5D Mk III using DPP as the RAW converter.

I see the same deep shadow pattern noise in my Canon raw files no matter what raw converter I use, and I normally use DPP for basic processing.

The next difference I find is that Canon's DPP doesn't provide the same tone-curve controls Lightroom or even DxO have, so it's not as simple to bring up the shadow areas in DPP to see the noise - but it's still there.  DPP seems to process the shadow end a little darker than the other converters, which minimizes the appearance of the noise.
When I process for printing I like to bring the shadow areas up a bit more to retain some shadow detail in the final print, and that's when the patterned and banded noise structures of Canon's raw files show up and sometimes cause problems.  The more you have to bring them up (sunlit landscapes = more DR) the more likely the problem with the shadow areas.

E.G.  I recently used my 5D2 with a 580EX II flash for fill to do some outdoor family portraits, mix of sun and cloud day.  3 of 4 people in the group wore pants of varying shades of dark gray.

In DPP, I added +1 EV to correct for overall exposure on the subjects because a strongly backlit sky threw off my basic exposure more than I'd planned. (I don't normally shoot outdoor portraits in rapidly changing sky conditions)  I still had to blow out the sky to get good exposure on the subjects.

That's only ONE stop of push, and even in DPP there's clearly banding noise visible on 2 of the darker pants, the noise exhibiting both vertical and horizontal banding and plenty of chroma noise.  This isn't even processing the dark levels up to where I'd normally prefer them yet.

I export those files to 16-bit TIFF to continue to work in Photoshop to do the usual touchups.
When I try to lift the dark tones of those pants slightly more I cannot, the banding noise becomes objectionable.  So that's a tiff file, exported by DPP, which is the de-facto decoder of Canon's raw file, still exhibiting strong noise in the shadows with only +1 EV of push.

Does this matter?
Well, i can make a shot like this work for a family portrait that the customer finds acceptable at the print sizes they want.
If I were to print it 30" wide then the pattern noise on the pants would be something I would see.

Compare this to sunlit landscape shots I recently took with my D800 where I want to retain ALL the scene detail, from textures in bright white clouds to textural detail in the charcoal of a burned tree, in the shade.  I manually expose using the old Sunny 16 thumbrule.  1/500s @ f/8 & ISO 100.  Considering the D800's ISO is about a half stop less than what it says, I could have exposed at least another 1/3 EV and still retained highlite details.
The resulting image from shooting such a scene has the remainder of the landscape very dark and the charred area pretty much black.
In Lightroom or Photoshop (ACR) I can then lift those shadow areas NUMEROUS EV, to the point where I can now see detail in the shaded area of the charcoal!  And guess what?... NO noise.  No banding of any kind, not even a spec of noise and that's with the usual 25/100 default chroma NR setting set to ZERO.
I didn't have to recover lost hilite detail because I already exposed to retain it near the camera's maximum.

This means this camera produces FAR cleaner shadows than a Canon. So I'm not surprised it's DR is rated a few stops better using the existing testing methodology.  There's no way in Hades I could process an image like this if I shot it with my 5D2! 
Ergo, I have to agree with DxO that the D800 provides considerably more real world usable dynamic range than a 5D Mark II.

Anyone want to BUY a super clean, barely used 5D2?...  I really don't know why I'm keeping it any longer.

427

Portrait / Re: Meet Damaris (PNSFW)

« on: July 24, 2012, 12:02:02 PM »

Thanks:).  And you are right, it's an opinion and I'm thankful we can all express it cordially. 

Though the develop whatever style you like amuses me...after 9 years of shooting it's still developing.  Stupid diluted stop bath is taking forever.

I do aim to be, if anything, non-hostile 

And, after 35 years of shooting mostly documentary and various technical styles, I'm learning how to add a more artistic flair to my images.  My creative young friend is often pointing out something I could do differently to create images that engage the viewer differently. 
Photography is a great activity with so much room to grow.  Likely why I still enjoy it so much after all these years and far more so with all the fabulous tools we now have available to provide near instantaneous results.

428

Portrait / Re: Meet Damaris (PNSFW)

« on: July 24, 2012, 01:49:38 AM »

While I like the idea, part of good thing about a white dress in a field is its glow.  I feel your edit, while showing more detail, actually takes away the personality of the dress.

I agree about the glow value of a light colored dress like that for providing an ethereal feel to the shot, it works especially well in a certain situations.

This is all highly subjective, but I find the original version draws my eyes away from her face and towards the lower L part of the image.  There are also the bright green weeds that are getting a little extra illumination and I find they also compete for attention.  Dropping those down an EV or 2 still keeps them in the image for interest but reduces their competitiveness with the main subject, which I presume is the pretty girl under the hat and the interesting expression on her face rather than the dress she's wearing.

And that's just MY opinion. 
Everyone is free to create whatever they wish that appeals to them which is one of the main things that makes photography so engaging and enjoyable.
I'm certainly no conformist to convention in many of my images either and that non-conformist approach does appeal to some viewers even more.  One of the main reasons I was requested for weddings or other work was someone saw what I shot and they decided they liked it more than the usual, more formulaic and formal methods often used.  There are plenty of ways to express that creativity.  Have fun with it and develop whatever style you like.

429

Portrait / Re: Meet Damaris (PNSFW)

« on: July 23, 2012, 10:15:29 PM »

While i hear what aglet is saying, i like what you did there and wouldn't change a thing.

i agree with you - I understand aglet's points...BUT, the light from above forms a wonderful highlight on her mischievous grin, while at the same time her eyes are hidden in dark mystery...photo art.

Yes, the eyes & face work well that but I'd like the dress toned down about half a stop, maybe more, I find it distractingly bright.
If you don't have snoots, easy to do in Lightroom with a neutral grad dragged up from the bottom left and tweaked to see if it looks better…

I just did a quick 2-grad filter, -0.7 from the bottom with some angle to tone down the white dress a wee bit. Another from the top R corner.  I'd play with it a bit more if I had time, maybe only -0.5 EV grad, slight sat and contrast boost

Also the hot-spot on her left shoulder jumps at me like a case of sunburn.  It's nitpicking for hobby level shooting but if you want to hear some hopefully constructive criticism, I'm full of it. 

430

EOS Bodies / Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

« on: July 23, 2012, 09:55:48 PM »

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

That's because you are looking at the (print) DR figure, which is where DxOMark really cooks it up.

Press the screen button in the upper left below the ISO Sensitivity. That gives you a pixel for pixel score. Dynamic range doesn't change with megapixels, unless you're DxOMark, then you come up with some formula that does that.

HAHA!  That's hilarious, and exactly what I mean about bad data at times!

I reloaded the DR screen data numerous times earlier today to ensure I was getting the correct data because I don't like their print number nonsense either, even tho I profess to understand it. 

I also didn't think they'd be so close to identical numbers so I wanted to double-triple-quad-check your posting.  A few times I got a "no data available" message so I'd have to reselect just 2 cameras and reload their test data for screen. 
Sounds like I have some possible Flash misbehavior on that machine I have at work because now I select the cameras again from my home computer and I get the same numbers you quoted originally.

Turns out it was giving me the print DR data for 5D2 and 300D instead of the screen DR for 5D3 and 300D even tho the camera bodies I was expecting were displayed in the graph I got as screen data.  I was looking at a bunch of different Canon bodies again before comparing 5D3 and 300D DR.

Hmmm - a cautionary there for anyone running an ancient G4 Mac with a very outdated version of Flash.
You might not be getting what you think you're getting.

431

EOS Bodies / Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

« on: July 23, 2012, 05:48:05 PM »

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better. 

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

I'm looking at the graph and seeing 5D3 ISO 100 screen DR as 11.86 and 10.78 for the 300D

And when I compare my 5D2 to my EOS 350D, there's a similarly small difference in performance.

I HAVE had DxO's site serve up bad data on occasion, reason's unknown.
but it's otherwise pretty consistent, Canon's low ISO performance is handicapped compared to the competition. 

Have a look at Pentax K5 also, THE top spec APS-C performer according to DxOmark.

432

Portrait / Re: Meet Damaris (PNSFW)

« on: July 23, 2012, 05:28:27 PM »

I like the compositions, but find the lighting somewhat harsh for my tastes.

#3 especially; her eyes are a bit too far into the dark shadow of the hat with too much light on the white top.
lowering the light source and using a snoot to control the location of the fill a little more might help or use more fill lights.
As long as you're having fun.

433

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Resolution Comparison: 5D Mark III vs. Nikon D800

« on: July 23, 2012, 05:21:48 PM »

Can you re-title the topic to VIDEO resolution comparison?

434

EOS Bodies / Re: Why is everyone calling the mk3 sensor the same as mk2?

« on: July 23, 2012, 02:49:44 AM »

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

No it would not. SNR test is carried out at middle gray where the signal is not affected so much by read noise.

LTRLI is correct
SNR can be measured at various levels and they're not using the dark end of the range or you'd REALLY see the results on a graph!

SNR of Canon's output is notoriously poor at the dark end where read-noise is a significant fraction of the signal level and that's where and why it only shows up in shadow areas.

That's also why total dynamic range results come out as they are.
Canon typically does a little better with highlight headroom but they lose considerable EV range at the dark end where SNR is the limiting factor to what constitutes allowable measurement range.
Because the Exmor sensor has a much lower read noise it can produce acceptable SNR at darker levels than the Canon system by a couple EV or more which adds to the total DR result.

You're free to believe other raw converters can't properly interpret the CR2 file but I believe you're quite wrong about that.

And if that doesn't convince you, just look at real world results of images shot with the latest Nikon sensors vs. Canons.

I have plenty of images from my 5D2 where noise is visible in shadow areas with only +1 EV of push applied, even using DPP.  Add +2 EV push and you need to start using noise reduction to get rid of the mess.
You just do not have this low ISO shadow noise issue with the recent Nikons!

After buying and testing my first Nikon body, and comparing it to about 15 Canon DSLRs I've been using over the past 5 years, while using DPP, ACR(LR & PS) and DxO to process my raw files, I DID NOT discover that Canon's performed any better than Nikon in this one critical area.  In fact, quite the opposite is true.  A sub-$600 Nikon body totally blows away every Canon I've ever used in dark shadow detail retention and lack of noise.  And that includes the otherwise well-regarded 5D2, 7D, 60D, 40D, etc.  And I'll put it up against the new 5D3 at low ISO as well.

The D5100 performed so well I ordered a D800, a D800e and another D5100.
Now I'm sure you don't know my technical background but do you really think I'd spend $10k on new Nikon gear to get better DR performance by mistake?

For another angle on this, Canon's G11 and G12 use, AFAIK, SONY sensors in them.  They also produce CR2 raw files.
Wanna have a look at their low ISO raw dark noise compared to Canon's EOS DSLRs using Canon's CMOS sensors?...

www.a2bart.com/tech/allcamdknz.htm

Try explain that one. 

435

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Have you considered joining the dark side?...

« on: July 23, 2012, 02:03:22 AM »

Same experience here with 5D2 with raw capture    It is just a "normal" shoot of a model in black dress outdoor at ISO100.
The red colour noise is so visible on the black dress without noise reduction! Had to dialup NR in LR so much that some detail of the dress is lost to completely remove the color noise...  Sigh... if Canon can't do it at ISO100, forget about those ISO800 shots!
It is such a basic requirement!

When I first got my 5D2 I was so excited to finally play with what everyone was raving about.
   I was not impressed from the first shot. 

Raw noise levels were worse than my 40D and I had visible banding right smack in the MIDtones at low ISO!  That was with the earlier firmware, 1.something, a version or 2 after they fixed the black-dot issue.
I should have sent the camera back but instead I parked it for about a year until, finally, later firmware versions mitigated the midtone banding and the camera was at least usable.  If the shot didn't contain anything really dark the results really were actually impressive at that point and I used it for a lot of landscape and some low-light indoor event shooting.  It was a pretty decent performer in its early days but it certainly left me disappointed in many ways.

Today I was out on a short hike and took only one camera; a D5100 and a few lenses, tripod and small white reflector to use when doing some close-up and macro shots on wildflowers and similar.  I almost took the D800 as well but decided to try travel light and I really didn't think I'd need the extra rez.  Mostly used a 105mm macro and mounted the cheapo 55-200mm kit zoom a couple shots where I needed some extra reach.
I could have just as easily taken a Canon Rebel, 100mm macro and something like their 55-2X0 lens or even their fairly good 18-200mm superzoom.  But I now know better.
Since it was a bright sunny day and I was going to be shooting in the open and possibly in the wooded areas with a mix of sunlight and deep shadow there was no way I was going to use a camera that could not handle the dynamics of such a scene.  The Canons stayed at home and the new puppy came along for the walk. 
It performed admirably and obediently and I took 132 shots with raw files I can tweak as much as I'd like without any worry of pattern noise showing up to ruin the effect and I don't have to worry about using any NR and risk losing some detail. 
That's what I want from a camera and I found some that can finally deliver.
It's just too bad I had to alter my mfr allegiance to do so.