September 18, 2014, 03:40:28 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 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 66
436
today only, Thursday, April 18th.
only IN store.

SX50 super-zoom for $350. also various other rebel-ish deals.

437
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 18, 2013, 08:11:43 PM »
and today only, Future Shop, Canada, you can find this little gem, INSTORE ONLY special, for $350!
I almost bought one.

6D was $1700 and kitted w 25-105 for $2200 - I'll spam this in deals section ..

438
Lenses / Re: 16-35 f/2.8II vs 17-40 f/4
« on: April 18, 2013, 12:14:25 AM »
The Tokina 17-35/4.0 i supposed to be really solid with nearly ZERO distortion!! to me, it looks close to both of your mentioned lens.

I never had the 16-35, have a 17-40 that's for sale.
I found it to be pretty usable at the wide end if stopped down to f/8 or smaller, improving considerably as you move to the long end.
If I used it for landscape work and didn't focus at hyperfocal or closer, my lens was always soft in the corners.  Worked well for indoor and other close-focus material, slightly disappointing if I wanted crisp-to-the-corners large landscape prints.

I got the Tokina 17-35/4 and it's excellent in many ways from 21-35mm but the corners at the wide end are as bad or worse than the 17-40, depending on how you're using it so not much of an improvement, if any, on Canon, but an option in F-mount.

I'm currently trying to put together a wide-zoom kit for Nikon landscape work, minimizing overlap and maximizing performance.  The Tokina 16-35 and 16-28 are both in the running for the mid-range wide-angle zoom with the Nikon 14-24 covering its best from about 14 to 20mm.

439
PowerShot / Re: SX50 outperforming 5DIII +100-400mm
« on: April 15, 2013, 03:03:53 PM »
as much as SLR gear has improved in the past decade, PnS cameras have improved leaps and bounds more.
They are quite usable for a lot of things, especially when you have the flexibility of raw files.

I regularly use G-series PowerShots for serious imaging of stationary subjects.
I did play with a G15 a few days ago, AF speed is much improved, even the switch to their own in-house type sensor has made for (surprising to me) improvements as well.  I hope this tech does trickle up to the next crop bodies.

back before I got my first DSLR, I made good use of a Panasonic DMC-FZ20.  a 12x constant f/2.8 stabilized lens was a huge fun factor and it worked extremely well.  Too bad the sensor got pretty noisy above base ISO.
With that, or eve better lenses now, on today's sensor tech, no good reason why a superzoom compact can't be a capable camera, as the OP has well demonstrated.

I haven't considered a superzoom PnS for a while either, thanks for opening my eyes.

440
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon D800 Value Dropping?
« on: April 13, 2013, 09:10:34 PM »
Use it properly and the D800/e really supplies the goods.
Use it with lesser lenses and you still benefit from superior low noise performance.

I've been getting satisfactory overall IQ with the 70-200/4 VR handheld even in poor light.
.. As long as it's not too cold.  The VR seems to freeze up after a while if it's well below freezing outside.  Nikon rep reminds me that it's really only a "consumer" lens after all.  yep...  guess so.

I've been a little disappointed to see how much resale has dropped on D800s recently.  Was hoping to recoup some cash for other uses by selling one of mine but now I doubt it's worthwhile.  May as well get another year or 2's use from it.  The little d5100s have held their value better as a percentage of initial purchase price.

Added a Pentax K-5 IIs to the stable this week.  I like it, sort of a super-rebel feature-wise, not the best AF system, despite improvements.  It's spot on when it works but it's not as nice an AF system as Canon or Nikon provide, kinda hokey when it comes to selecting AF point and operation.  But, it's more than adequate for what I want from it and it fits like a fine glove - with impressive ISO performance at BOTH ends of the scale.

441
Technical Support / Re: Is this dust or sensor damage?!
« on: April 11, 2013, 07:12:48 PM »
OIL spots can be very dark, large and persistent and slightly INconsistent - don't often get these with Canon but not impossible.
Oil spot appearance, if large enough to show up below F/8 or so should be visible with a good sensor loupe.

442
EOS Bodies / Re: Is the SL1 sensor an improvement?
« on: April 11, 2013, 04:42:07 PM »
I'm also very curious about whether any low ISO FPN has improved in this generation.
However, OOC jpg is not a great indicator, even jpgs from my bandy 7d looked good, raw held the real problem.

I can bide my time...  waiting for something truly good to come along from Canon, as I already have truly good from other mfrs to use in the meantime.
Heck, i even sold my EF 70-200 f/2.8 L v2 the other day, since it doesn't fit on my d800... :-\

443
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 08, 2013, 01:20:01 PM »
I would love to see Canon improve their performance in this area and I am sure that they will, but I have no interest in improvement for improvement's sake which is how I read many of these comments.
 
As I said, I have yet to see anything put up as an example of what you can do with Sony/Nikon that I couldn't replicate with Canon gear.  I don't see any game-changing impact on the state of current "ART" as a result of it.  I see excellent photographers doing inspiring work with both systems.  This technology has been around for a while and I have yet to see anything come out of it that makes me say… “OMG, I need to put all my Canon stuff up on e-bay and convert to Nikon so I can do this work”.

So, yes from a technology perspective, improve it please, but from a photographic perspective, for me at least, it is sort of a “non-starter”.

OK, a perfectly rational sentiment. :)
I'm similarly hoping Canon will improve in this one area tho. I still use my older Canon bodies for lots of shots, but I pull out the exmors when I know I'll be pushing the dark areas, cuz there are times I do need that unbanded performance.  It's not all about DR, it's about the quality of that DR.  And the ballyhoo over the 5d2 was, in my case, all for naught, as it was a very poor performer for my uses, left a bad after-taste.  Improvements are inching along tho, 5d3's better and 6d looks pretty good so far.  Might even buy one.

444
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Announcements on April 23, 2013? [CR2]
« on: April 08, 2013, 03:40:11 AM »
Guys, I'll probably ask a very naive and somewhat a silly question... What exactly is the difference between different generations of Canon sensors? I mean, let's say Canon 5d ii and iii share the same sensor (correct?) however 5d iii overall has a better signal/noise ratio. That means that the improvements in the image quality do not necessarily require a new sensor technology? So, why do we all want Canon to have a new generation of sensors in their DSLR? Just curios  :)

It is nothing but a bunch of gearhead whiners crying because "theirs" ain't the biggest this week.  Ask yourself this:  have you ever been able to walk through a gallery and point out which camera shot which photo?  If the stuff was as bad as some of these idiots claim, nobody would use it.

Something else you might want to ask yourself:  If this Sony technology is such a "game changer" why hasn't the game changed?  Where are the stunning examples of what can be done?  Why do we continue to see shots of the back of lens caps, mediocre landscape shots with shadows lifted 5 stops just to prove a point?  Where are the game changing photographs from this so-called game changing technology?

If this represents such a huge advance in the state of the art of making art, where the heck is the art?  Galeries won't hang your DxO curves.
yup, that under-acheiver, don't fix it cuz it's not all broke, set-the-bar-low attitude's gonna get you some spankin' new sensor system R&D fo' sho!'
seriously, whatsamaddawitchyoo?
why you no want improvements?

445
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: DxOMark trashes the Leica M9 sensor
« on: April 06, 2013, 12:45:47 AM »
DXO mark means nothing. They take their objective tests and interpret them in completely subjective ways, all (as it would seem) on Nikon's dime. Super biased, all rubbish, especially their ISO scores. Canon should be top of the mark for every camera they've put out in the ISO division, right next to Pentax, and Nikon and Sony should be right in the bin every time. But it's absolutely the opposite. If you've ever seen the DPReview studio comparison tool, I highly recommend cranking up the ISO on there and seeing for yourself what I'm talking about. D5200? Rubbish. D800? Rubbish at anything above or below ISO 200. 5DIII? A f@ck!ng mint. DXO scores the opposite in every case.
Can't agree with you without knowing specifically WHY you think this.  Not sure I would if I did, I don't care for the one-number DxO score either.
However...
Have a close look at the full test results for each camera sensor and compare those.  To start with, look carefully at the full range signal to noise tests and you'll likely see results closer to your expectations.

446
So, while more is awesome, can't we be happy with what we've already got?

as long as options exist,
never, ever, settle.
Strive for better.
/philosophy

447
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: April 06, 2013, 12:05:13 AM »
I am SO enjoying this. :)
And you should borrow a d800 and reshoot that garden shed the same way and push the files the same way.
Why?
I mean, really.

But why should you try this with a D800 or other Exmor-equipped camera?.
Why not?
Call it a learning experience, pushing the/your envelope.

Want an application?
Shooting into the sun and being able to underexposure more to capture color gradients even closer to old Sol and still bringing up the rest of the scene to visible levels and retaining more color and tonal information without FPN.

Edit: here's an example of just that:
www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=8105.msg161888#msg161888
Significant PP work to re-tone the original image to get what I wanted from it, so that it matches my perception of how it looked, standing on that beach.  No NR was used or needed. There are no pure black pixels.  There are no pure white pixels.  There is no FPN.  (I did remove an ugly boat.) It looks good in print, 36" wide, could go double that easily. /edit

Or, underexposing more to capture textural information on objects with lots of specular highlites or highly reflective areas while also still retaining good liftable data on the rest of the scene.
I actually did such a shot last week with a D5100 as I was poking around a snowy rural landscape in bright sunshine and shot a subject that also contained very deep shadow information and I paid close attention to how it looked visually so I could recreate it later.  Come to think of it, coal may actually have been involved!
It's not as good or extreme an example as a sunset, it's not even a great shot but I took it as an exercise to examine later.
That you can't imagine situations where this is useful surprises me and makes me wonder about your range of photographic experience.  Some of us like to try extreme things for the sake of it, to discover where the limits are.  For some of us, that edge is where the fun and learning happens.

I took something that would normally come out as solid black, turned it into a Zone IX textured highlight, and it's more than adequate for even significant enlargements.

if that's something that would normally come out as solid black I don't want you doing my printing or prep work. ;)
Perhaps you like an overly contrasty tone curve - some do. I certainly don't.

If you can do a bit of math, that means that the 5DIII has, effectively, at least twenty stops of usable dynamic range: ten from the normal highlights these would have been had it been properly exposed to the solid blacks of the standard rendering of this scene, and then another ten from the digital push of those blacks back to highlights.

uhmmmm...  :o
The only relevant math is how much DR can be captured in ONE shot and it's qualified by how one defines the lower limit noise floor; whether that's an average RMS value of the noise, or a more useful Peak to peak level of noise (FPN) becoming visible at 100%.  The latter is my more stringent standard.
As it stands, the 5d3 and the d800 are still limited to less DR than many daylite scenes can present.
When challenged with such a scene tho, I'll use a more capable D800, thank-you.

BTW, Thanks for supplying a 7 stop under-exposed 5d3 image on the previous page.
I'm slightly impressed that it recovers as well as it does when bringing it back those 7 stops without the banding being any worse.

448
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5d Mark III Shadow recovery
« on: April 05, 2013, 04:49:29 PM »
I am SO enjoying this. :)

and now you can finally see the useful relevance of actually shooting with a lens cap on and pushing a mere 4 stops to compare N & FPN. (see my tech blog if you forgot) It sure showed me a lot more useful and easily compared info than all this volleyed text with "real world images."

@Trumpet
so the 5d3 is actually showing reasonable levels of FPN, by which I mean, it's fairly acceptable and workable.  That's good.  I still won't buy one tho, I want more of an improvement in low ISO performance.  After all, I've seen "the dark side," bought it, shoot with it, bought more of it, and I won't go back to Canon's chroma-snow and stripes.

OTOH, the 5d2 I had was SO bad that shades a mere 3EV below metered 0, pushed a mere ONE stop, showed FPN.
And all the handwringing angst THAT generated from so many posters here. :)
Other 5d2s certainly looked to perform better than the one I had, but it was pretty near impossible for me to have my point accepted and nobody d/cared to supply comparison shots.

People are right, this IS getting boring, all the more so when discussions degrade into little more than semantics.

But I'm glad you posted some garden shed shadow recovery from your 5d3, it's way the heck better than my 5d2 was in that regard.
And you should borrow a d800 and reshoot that garden shed the same way and push the files the same way.
Then report back to us on that.
I suspect I know what that'll be but at least you may then have a bit more respect for what that Exmor can do and why some of us prefer the expanded lower limits it provides.

449
One of my complaints about DXO has been that they measure a sensor and declare a camera to be the best without ever taking a photo.
 
They have started testing lenses a while back, and publishing results in conjunction with DPR.  I suspect that this has raised questions as to what the rating of a camera would be if a lens were installed.
 
We have long noted that a image from 6 or 10 mp sensor looks very sharp when viewed at 100%.  This is due to a lens resolution, circle of confusion, and other factors.  When you get high pixel densities, resolution of the system does not scale, but is always a improvement.
 
That is what DXO mark is saying.
 
Technically,  the MTF of the system is equal to the MTF of the individual components multiplied together, and is always less than the weakest link.  Even film has MTF values specified.
 
So, for simplicity,  if a lens has a MTF of 0.9, a Body 0.8,  together they are 0.72.  Increase the body to 0.85, and the system becomes 0.765.  Better, but not a revolution because the lens needs to get better as well.
 
However, there are those who only look at one part of the picture, the number of MP, for example and happily believe that with twice the MP, they get twice the resolution. (No reflection on CR members who mostly know better).
 
One thing that the D800 sensor brings is very noticeable improvement in dynamic range under harsh lighting conditions such as bright sun and deep shadows.

That's about right

Or, what DxOmark's testing translates to in this regard is simply

DIMINISHING RETURNS of increasing sensor resolution

Adding 60% more MP does not give correspondingly (square root of ratio) more resolution.

Adding more MP can increase overall acuity, since it's part of an equation containing the factors mentioned above, but it's only one factor.

another good example is in DPreview's comparison of the AA-less D7100 and the AA-equipped D5200, both with very similar sensors of equivalent pixel count.

www.dpreview.com/previews/nikon-d7100/6

only in the small range of optimal lens performance (wider apertures) can a difference be noticed whereas regular shooting with real-world lenses and settings this AA-less sensor performance is no better.
(personally I'd take the d5200 over the 7100 for better performance/cost, slightly lower overall sensor noise and it oddly fit my hand better than the 7100)

450
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 11:57:51 PM »
Know how I know that Mikael Residal is gone?  This DR pissing contest happens about once every two weeks, instead of about once every two days.  That, and no more pics of barbecues.  Honestly, even the barbecues were more interesting than this constant repetitive crap.

Agree to disagree, or I have a hunch that more people will start disappearing - both 11-stoppers and 14-stoppers.

</rant>
I can certainly agree with you on this.

OK, let's take this, er..., discussion outside.  ;D

Pages: 1 ... 28 29 [30] 31 32 ... 66