April 19, 2014, 09:14:28 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 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 55
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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW8Cz_v3w1E Small | Large

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 ;)

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:36:35 PM »
@ JR
That's really interesting about Nikon and how they handle their black levels.
I remember seeing samples when their first "lord of the dark" came out, D3 or D3S?...  and I could see the black levels were clean but certainly looked artificially so.
In comparison, I'm finding the more recent Nikon output to be more realistic in that area, at least for my purposes, but I've never tried astro' so this is really quite interesting and something I'll have to look in to when I can.

Thanks, also, for the reminder and links to Roger Clark's site.  I'm glad he's keeping it updated (unlike mine) so will have to spend some time reading there as well.

And yes, laugh as some may about it, I can garner a fair bit of useful info very quickly from a "dark shot" by pushing it 4 stops and looking at the noise patterns.  It tells me immediately what to expect if I have to push a file from it.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:21:27 PM »
What I find really interesting is when the DR/FPN Evangelists are actually challenged with an image that squarely disputes their assertions religion, they all ignore it.

hmmm?? Don't get "FPN"?
Fixed Pattern Noise

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 10:12:55 PM »
What fact am I distorting?

"And with Canon equipment, you're at about 10 stops of usable dynamic range."

less, actually, if you are choosing high standards of SNR then only 8 or 9 stops for the 5d3 accordin' t' I-R


edit:  jeez, I don't know if that can be right, that really sucks! :P

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 09:45:40 PM »
That's a good explanation on the previous page JR, thanks for posting that for those who need it.

The only thing I'd add to that even if we know the RMS (or averaged) read noise numbers used for their base DR calculation, we would still have no clue as to HOW UGLY lifted shadows will look.  That's what pushed-4-stops-lens-cap-on shots are for! :)

If DxOmark would publish the peak-to-peak read noise, and they'd still likely have to do a compromise of that, or add a read-noise histogram to be more thorough, then we would have a more clear indicator of whether that noise is random in nature, and therefore subjectively less bothersome, or patterned, and therefore  more difficult to mask.

E.g.  In the case of the 7Ds I looked at, alternating vertical bands of (8 per, i think) pixels had different levels of read noise and this produces obvious stripe artefacts when lifting shadow areas. Since the ratio of read noise to signal there is already very low the read noise difference is made obvious.
In some other cameras the read noise is more uniformly distributed and is less obvious when lifting shadows.

Imaging Resource provides a different way of presenting the DR measurement, by providing DR figures at different signal to noise ratios, still likely based on RMS read noise, but it provides more of a spread of figures which can be helpful and they also publish more noise data as well, including individual RGB curves.

Here they are for the 7D, and the tiny-sensored Pentax Q.


Even I'll say I'd take the 7D's file over the Q's file for lower overall (BER) noise on a real image - at least until I wanted to lift shadows, where the tiny Q's lack of FPN can then show the 7D how that's done.


Then throw in unit-to-unit variability and improvements that may be made during the mfg run of a given body and there are more things to argue about.   For instance, my late model 40D, a model initially reputed to have some noise issues, provides noticeably less FPN in pushed files than my early production 7D or early 5D2 did, yet some claim noisy 40Ds and clean 7Ds or 5D2s.

So, back to DxOmark - or any site that does not define how they make those measurements or what baselines they use, even the uninterpretted the data provided is less than ideal or conclusive. (But it's still more informative than "real world pictures" for such matters)
The best rough data from DxOmark on this is the FULL SNR curves because you can see how each sensor performs at each ISO and at a lot of different levels from dark to white levels.

Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 09:41:25 PM »
There, do you feel better now?

Does your distortion of facts, either through intentional obfuscation or simple lack of comprehension, make you feel better?  I just see it as rather sad and pathetic...

^-- Seriously --^

I....WOW....just WOW.... ???

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 55