November 27, 2014, 02:42:37 PM

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 ... 73
They've done a good job improving the chroma noise character on the 7d2.  It's quite fine grained and not very blotchy so should respond very well to NR software.  In fact it's pretty decent noise character across the whole ISO range.
I'm looking forward to making my own raw file tests and torturing them in post to see how much they can take before they scream, "FPN!"  ;D
Would be nice if they only yell out, "Random!" instead.

Technical Support / Re: Do I Need $ 634 US Dollars Light meter ?
« on: October 18, 2014, 01:58:04 PM »
I have a 758 and 558(?) but really only need the simpler 308(?)
The only time I find them useful is when mixing multiple flash sources with some ambient light.  And for that it's quite useful.  regular incident measurement and spot functions are of little use most times.
Video abilities of the high end models can be useful but you can also do that with a regular meter too and a little in-head math.

With my eyesight heading south faster than a songbird in september there's not much point in me having pixels so small I can't see them when I'm editing.

I'd rather have a 4k or 5k display that's 60"
Then I can be a decent distance back (no glasses), still edit pixel level without excessively enlarging the view and have more of a life-size preview of my prints.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:51:22 PM »
actually, I think I can see PBD's point of view on this - you can't average a bunch of zeros and get a lower zero.
but you can average  bunch of slightly above zero shades+noise which has the effect of increasing effective DR because now there's more useable tonality.

I think the difference in arguments is the threshold chosen for the base
 numerical 0 = black vs SNR=1 = black.

EDIT:  there has to be some intrusive amount of noise in order for the downsampling to actually effect an improvement.  If there's insufficient noise then the noise floor ~ 0 and you can't create more total tonal range from that data. (tho you might be able to smoothen it to create more discernable shades/tones)
The DxOmark calculated downsampled effective DR being > than the possible output range is just a mathematical creation useful only as a measure of merit.  But that also does not negate the value of a lower read noise sensor as it truly can deliver more accurate tones and smoother shading in the deep shadow areas.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 750D real world review
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:22:01 PM »
it is a VERY good and well featured camera for the price.
And I like the way it fits my hand.  But I've already got a bag full of Nikon gear so will pass on this one.

Reviews / Re: Tony Northrup - D810 vs. 5D Mk3
« on: October 14, 2014, 09:19:03 PM »
What it won't do is have a brighter bright or darker dark, and surely that is the measure of DR, not how many divisions that same range is divided into?

actually, it may be an oversimplification but yes, downsampling will give you darker dark tones as the noise (which lightens them) is averaged out.
Therefor, greater effective DR, when measured as the ratio of light/dark at some SNR limit.

I don't have time to watch another self-assurance video.

BUT, the OP's point is valid and I see that other co's making camera gear are "thinking differently."
If you read the interview from imaging-resource a while back about the Samsung NX1

you'll see that Samy's taking this idea and running with it, at least as far as the hardware goes.
What kind of photographic app tools they'll come up with to control this high bandwidth beast I can't yet fathom as I'm one of those who still likes both feet in the old paradigm for now.  I can imagine a variety of specialty focus trap features will be at the forefront.

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D Mark 2 Preorders "sound off"
« on: October 13, 2014, 04:35:00 PM »
place my canadian pre-order within a couple days of it being announced and delivery expected mid November

EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 02:39:30 PM »
no significant effect to overall DR but there can be a noticeable effect to fine (micro) contrast being greater.

ALL my favorite cameras (that I use) are AA-less:
D800E, various Fuji Xtrans bodies, Pentax K52s, Olympus EM10, etc.

I really like the detail and contrast they provide for finely textured natural subjects.  I've not had any significant moire problems altho I will use an AA filtered camera when shooting scenes that have specular hilites, like bodies of water on a clear day, as the reflected hilites can have false-color fringes which look strange and are too much trouble to fix in post.

Nature moves a <0.5s...across the entire frame...thereby defeating a manual blend?  ::)

if you're shooting rocks, or anything else when the air is dead calm...  Rarely the case for most of us.

I would consider it "easily circumvented." Soft brush on a mask? Not long at all.

how much time each of us have to devote to fixing problems in photoshop varies
I have little and much prefer simple global adjustments on files that can stand up to such adjustments.

But most people generating chatter on the Internet right now are doing so because they saw a Fred Miranda or Tony Northrup review.

Not necessarily true, but not false either.
I discovered this forum when I went looking for information on the horrible levels of shadow banding on my 7D and blue-sky banding my 5d2 exhibited.

Taken with Olympus C-5050 in 2003

Now THAT is what really qualifies in this gallery, IMO! :)

What about you? If you would have had top gear right from day one, would have it been "worth it"?

my shots would not necessarily have improved much because of equipment, but the quality of my files could have been a bit better with different gear.

I recently revisited some older files I have in my "finished" collection I use for printing.
Looking at them 1:1 now - yeesh!  Some of them are very noisy and grainy.  I may actually reprocess a few using newer & better NR software i now have available.  They look very good printed at 18x12 inches but I'm planning to get a 44" machine and I'll want to up my file quality to print as many as possible to stand up to printing as large as possible.

The past 2 years of using ABC cameras have really spoiled me for pixel-peeping file quality vs what I was shooting prior to that.

I managed to listen to radio bit this morning on the way to work

Worth listening to all of it, as there are sections pertinent to the various behaviors we see on forums, like this, scattered throughout the episode.

Accused troll Brenda Leyland's death sparks debate over how (or if) cyberbullies should be confronted

It's a free download, courtesy of canadian taxpayers, i mean citizens, like me.  Enjoy. :)

EDIT:  ooops, forgot to include the episode title

Reviews / Re: Scott Kelby 7D Mark II Real World
« on: October 07, 2014, 10:49:19 PM »
Looks like DIGIC 6 is doing a decent job. Not FF level quality, but definitely better than the 7D at high ISO.

The thing that was surprising to me was the amount of color noise in the boke background of the ISO 100 shot...seems like a lot of color noise for midtones....  ??? I'm hoping it's just a JPEG encoding thing, and that it wouldn't be there in the RAW.

Which begs the question...where are some 7D II RAW images? The OOC JPEGS look good for an APS-C, and that's probably primarily due to the DIGIC 6 processor...but how are the RAWs? Are the RAWs cooked by DIGIC 6 like the JPEGS? If RAW IQ going to suffer?
The outdoor shots in decent light look OK.
Just a quick look but, amongst the noise, in lower midtones of some of the smooth OOF areas, it still kinda looks like some repetitive vertical pattern structures are faintly visible...  :-\

Canon General / Re:
« on: October 06, 2014, 12:43:11 AM »
could be a really funky new medical imaging something-er-other

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 73