September 01, 2014, 11:11:27 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 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 64
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 07:30:24 PM »
Aglet, why u no Nikon already? My take after eating my popcorn.

Aglet - There is FPN on 5D2 files.

General response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Here is a file that shows the FPN.

General Response - Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - Well Prove me wrong! supply me photos!

General Response - Here's some photos. Don't lift the shadows +3 stops. 5D2 is a fantastic camera.

Aglet - >:( That doesn't mean nothing!

Rlphoto - :| Pass the popcorn.
Actually, my FF gear is now Nikon, but that's not the point either. :)
FPN on my 5d2 showed up at less than a 2-stop push applied to levels that should have been high enough to not exhibit a problem (e.g. -3 EV down from metered)

Repeating for (who's keeping track of how many times now?)
If anyone of you 5d2-lovers actually HAS one, and are brave enough to show, or at least TELL, us how it performs in simple tests, as outlined a pg or 2 back, then please do so. (RL?...)
I'd like to compare it to mine, which might have been a bit of a lemon in the FPN area.
If you're willing to post a sample of a pushed raw file, kindly include a full res crop so we can see pixel-per-pixel, not scaled down so small as to obliterate FPN in the averaging.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 07:19:40 PM »
So, I give you a nighttime shot with a classic 5D with a very wide dynamic range and shadows lifted at least a couple, maybe a few stops (I honestly don't remember)...and that's not enough to tell you what you need to know?

why the heck would I want to use your 5dc to compare to my 5d2?!?
only thing they've got in common is the "5" and a tripod mount!
You telling me you'd ask for samples of my 5d2 file and would be satisfied if I gave you a 5dc instead?!?
who's got the fundamental understanding problem here?
I've got a dozen other bodies I can compare it to, I'm asking for 5D2 samples, as outlined.
You really are not good at following instructions.  ::)

What, do you think the 5DII has worse noise than the classic?
don't know, don't care about 5dc

Do you only shoot grey cards and not actual photographs? Have you ever actually wanted to lift shadows more than the extreme amount I did in that shot?
re-read your own reply before you post it - edit, re-read, edit, re-read... go have some popcorn

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:40:19 PM »

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject.  IT IS SIMPLE.

Who gives a flying leap how much noise you've got after pushing exposure five stops? And when on Earth would you push exposure five stops other than if you had forgotten to take the lens cap off?

It's like you're complaining that Michael Jordan was an incompetent athlete because he couldn't throw a 110 mph curveball over the strike zone with a football while wearing a goalie's uniform.

If you seriously think you're being serious, I seriously recommend the help of a licensed mental health professional.


I'm only quoting this whole pile above so everyone can clearly see you actually did not understand what I told you.

As such, any further commentary from you will be disregarded until you display adequate comprehension of the problem and can provide valid input.  You seem more interested in a brawl than actually exchanging knowledge.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:35:42 PM »

I don't have anything handy from a 5DII, but here's something from a classic 5D, shot not long after I got it several years ago.

Two copies. First is the JPEG preview the camera embedded in the raw file. Next is after I last re-did the post processing a few years ago. I'll probably re-visit it again at some point in the future. I've made 12" x 18" prints and been most happy with them.

If the dynamic range of any of the 5D line of cameras prevents you from getting the shot, you have nothing to blame but your own incompetence.



nice, but another irrelevant comparison/sample.

and again, I'm not talking about dynamic range (DR), altho it is directly affected by noise content
I'm purely interested in the highly offensive appearance of Fixed Pattern Noise (FPN) which is much more of a problem than reduced DR.

Again, anyone with a 5d2 care to contribute appropriate test shots, technique as outlined?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:29:24 PM »

Huh? You can't be serious. You think there's some point in attempting to recover from a shot five stops underexposed? Hell, even three stops underexposed is insane. But five?

totally serious, but you misunderstand.
i'm not asking to recover a -5EV shot to 0, or the -4 or the -3.
I'm asking you to try this and see how far you can push your 5d2's -3, -4, or -5EV shot before visible pattern noise shows up on a smooth subject.  IT IS SIMPLE.
In the real world this can by sky, water, various man-made surfaces so it's completely appropriate.

Sorry, I'm not accepting any blame for the camera's metering.  i didn't build it or calibrate it.
If you know how it works, look at the subject and shooting conditions, you should realize why.
Apparently you did not read/comprehend all the info provided. Take more time to understand than to ridicule, it's better all around.

if you have a 5d2 and care to contribute, follow the instructions.  If not, sit back, have some popcorn and join the rest of the peanut gallery to watch the drama.  ;D

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:17:15 PM »
I'm out of popcorn. :|

Edit: Btw Aglet, I could do a better job with a D30 than what you've shown as samples.

I'll share my twizzlers

and my 40 D can also provide better samples, that's not the point.
Do you still have a 5d2? If so, care to perform the test described and publish your results?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 03:11:59 PM »
So, as a kind of rebuttal against the DR "issues", I had a play with a file or two.

Image was shot with a 1Ds MkIII, effectively the same sensor as the 5D MkII. Here are two images, they are both screenshots from LR with before to the left and after to the right, first is the full frame the second is a 100% crop, the blue is obviously black warning. It was a test exposure shot at a wedding reception to determine ambient levels, there is no point of focus.

I have included the develop module adjustments panel. The exposure is lifted 5 stops, shadows another 1+ stop, only other adjustment was noise reduction.

Now I don't know about you, but I know I could print this to 8"x10" without issue, particularly if I put some clarity and/or contrast in there and did a white balance etc.

P.S. I have got the nads!

Great, you got nads.
But can you do this with a 5d2?!?
I already know the old 1DS3 is a good/better camera, so is my ancient 40D, as compared to the 5d2 I had.  So this contribution is an "irrelevance."

That's the point, comparing my extremely noisy 5D2 to another 5d2.  A 1Ds3 is not "close enough."  internal guts are quite different and it's not just the sensor in the equation but every bit of copper and silicon between the pixel and raw file.

So, will someone with 'nads AND a 5d2 care to show how well their camera can perform in this simple test?

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 12:02:21 PM »
Well, I've yet to see someone post some 5d2 test shots that show it is NOT noisy.  I've sample some other raw files that seemed to be less noise-patterned than the ones my camera created, including the samples at imaging-resource.

There's a fair possibility that the particular body I had was a lemon. Why don't we, and I mean you, find out?
I only had the one 5d2 and it was so bad I did not buy a second, unlike various other bodies i've used.

So, for those who actually HAVE a 5d2. kindly take a white or gray card, use a long lens and the largest f# you can use on it, light it evenly, and shoot a metered shot in raw.  then shoot it again at -3,-4, -5 EV from metered.

Take the -3,4 & 5 EV shots into ACR or LR (or even DPP) and apply + exposure compensation.
Tell me how far you can go before you see any pattern noise showing up.
Simple as that.
Post your results here if you've got the 'nads.

As for those still haranguing about my sample shot being 2 stops underexposed, DAMN RIGHT IT IS!
And I'll take responsibility for -2/3 of that underexposure.  The rest is camera metering.  (sarc)Can't blame any of that on the gear tho, everything Canon makes is perfect. (/sarc)
Give some thought to all the dark subject matter and use of CWA metering, for those who may not know how that works.

I am kinda satisfied with anything. Sure, a 1DX would be nice, but that won't be happening anytime soon.

I would really love an affordable ultra wide prime or zoom instead of my manual Samyang, which I am satisfied with by the way, but just to scratch off that manual focussing. Sadly there is no real alternative qualitywise other than the Canon 14mm L II prime itself which is way too expensive. Tamron 14mm, Sigma 12-24mm, Sigma 14mm all are while being affordable far away from reaching the Samyang's image quality.

here's hoping their 24mm Tilt-shift is on the same sharpness level as that 14mm!
Could use something that performs the job for less than the OEM priced options.

The lady sitting beside me in the plane..... As we are passing over Winnipeg, at night, at 35000 feet, the pilot announces "and if you look out of the windows on the right side of the plane you can see the lights of Winnipeg". She whips out a DSLR and starts taking flash pictures of Winnipeg.

Why isn't my flash bright enough to light up a city from 35,000 feet? Why won't my camera magicaly cancel out the reflection of the flash off of the window? Does this mean I have to upgrade to FF and the new magic super sensor?

egads, some Co. I don't remember even has a MODE for this on some of their small cameras!

I wish that there were more options for people such as myself who seem to have monstrous hands. It makes it hard to want to carry a camera all day thats just wayy to small.

Used to be a time, back in film days, that there were some interesting add-on accessories that would be helpful.
There sure did add a lot to the overall bulk of the system tho.
Friend of mine with big hands has similar complaints with his 7D, even with a grip it's kind of small for him.  Kinda funny to see him try use a little Rebel.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 12, 2013, 01:22:37 AM »
It's probably because your photos are awful and nobody gives a S___ about what some hack "photographer" has to say. The 5D2 is a venerable piece of equipment that has served many, many people very well. Let us know how much better your D800 is at recovering the shadows when you underexpose your next subject's black pants. ::)

you missed the part where a -3EV exposure shows pattern noise with +1 EV
no way that can be described as a good performing camera, no matter what the subject.
SNR on that thing is far worse than DxO published measurements convey because they don't accurately evaluate detectable noise pattern

if you expect me to show you SNR problems at higher EV levels you don't understand how this works.

I am still waiting for one person to post a single optimally exposed image where the Canon DR ruined the shot but the Nikon made a worthwhile one.

you just SAW one example, not gonna waste my time providing others.

If people can't infere or extrapolate real world performance from an example or controlled tests then the camera's IQ isn't the only problem.

I would not say the 5d2 is useless, but it is very limited in its usefulness.
I did say that it was a very disappointing product for the price and even compared to its forerunners, never mind comparing it to the competition.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d2 shadow noise and how I eliminate it...
« on: February 11, 2013, 02:37:52 AM »
I have discovered over the years that the best way to get super clean shadows with the 5d2 is to overexpose the image. I have not really tried it much with portraiture but in industrial, landscapes and architecture and interiors it works very well. I am quite surprised how much detail there are still left in what appears to be 'overexposed' highlights and because the shadows are 'overexposed'  they are clean when I 'pull' them in post processing. More images and some thoughts why I think my 5d2 is still good enough for most applications here at..

It certainly can be good enough for a lot of things, and some technique can extend that for sure.
BUt, I got rid of mine tho, as I'd purchased it for landscape when it came out and it was the most disappointing camera I've owned.
Just did some extra test shots before I sold it recently; flat shade target, shot at 1 EV intervals from -5 to +3 as metered.
Histogram peaks line up perfectly on the grid in DPP at those levels.
Then pushed them a little in post using ACR or DPP.  Don't even need to go +2 stops before I saw pattern noise on not only the -5 EV shot, but the -4 and the -3 EV shot would show FPN with as little as +1 EV push!
That, to me, is a camera with severely limited dynamic range if the appearance of any FPN is the criteria.
That was a deal-breaker for me, should have got rid of it long ago.
I did get some great shots with it, but it just didn't work the way I needed/wanted/expected it to.

I'd like to know if other 5d2s fare as poorly with the same kind of test or if mine was just a complete lemon.

6D seems considerably better, not sure if enough to appease me yet.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 10, 2013, 01:13:58 PM »
Is everybody sleeping in this morning?  Where's the ruckus I expected to find over the 5d2 samples I posted?  ;D

In one more kick, at a camera that I think is junk with too many flaws, primarily its terribly noisy low ISO shadow performance, I ran a quick test on some files I had shot for this purpose just before I sold it to some poor sap.

I'd shot 1 EV steps from -5 to +3 of a smooth toned nearly neutral surface. Under wide-specrum flourescent, unfortunately, the sun was on the other side of the planet at the time so I couldn't use it.

Going from my real-world e.g. back on pg 8 of this thread, the ladies black pants seem to be responsible for the -5 EV hump in the histogram.
If the 5d2 has nearly 4 stops above 0, and I'm being generous here, then the 5 stops below are only 9 EV worth of DR out of what it's claimed on DxO to be over 11 stops.

Well, if one wants to do ANY pushing in post, the DxOmark measurement for this camera's DR is still misrepresented, it's still woefully optimistic.

By my simple measurements, if you need to do a +2 EV push in the deep shadows, for whatever reason, then

the 5D Mark II has a USEFUL DYNAMIC RANGE OF LESS THAN 9 STOPS before pattern noise becomes a problem.
= = = = = =
ADDENDUM 13-02-10 2320mst:
I knew it was likely even worse than this so I quickly checked a couple other test shots:
the -4 EV shot, raised less than 2 stops, also shows FPN
the -3 EV shot, will also show FPN if raised by 1 to 2 stops!

5D2 is now down to a 7 or 8 stop DR camera if any appearance of FPN is the cutoff point.
Little wonder I was not happy with it.
Anyone else want to do the same tests with their 5D2?  It might be satisfying to know I had a lemon.
OTOH, you might not want to know the truth about your own camera.
= = = = = =
That, my Canon-loving friends, is what I call a P-o-S camera and that's why I got rid of mine.
That, is why the 5D2 was the worst camera in my stable for my purposes and the most disappointing piece of Canon gear I'd ever purchased.
That, is the kind of useful information you can get from shooting dark frames and pushing them in post.
That, is why the 6D is looking like a major low ISO IQ improvement over the 5D2 and one main reason why I'd recommend it over the 5d2 for anyone who can afford the price difference, if they want to shoot Canon.

And finally, that is why I'd like to see a lot less moaning on this topic in general from people who haven't done any basic tests on this camera.  Maybe I had a lemon, it was one of the earlier made ones.  I doubt it.  Altho it did meter with too much variability compared to my other, older bodies.

If you don't push in post, ever, for any reason, then your 5d2 will likely serve you well enough.
IF you do need to push in post, for creative reasons or merely to recover from an underexposure error, then the 5d2 could be a disappointing camera for you.

Since this is a 5d3 thread, sort of, shoot your own tests and see what you come up with. I don't have one, don't want one.
= = = = = =
another addendum - I-R agrees with me. See their DR results page, closer to the bottom
and their sample images look to be cleaner in the shadows than shots from my camera
= = = = = =

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D III Dynamic Range
« on: February 09, 2013, 10:21:54 PM »
Usually, great tools helping us to get a good photos. But sometimes great photos doesnt mean come from a great tools. We need to find the solution to cover our tools weakness. In this topic, we talk/complaining about canon weakness is DR.

So find the solution how to cover canon low DR the same time we can learn something new..

Dont limit our creativity by our tools limitation. Just have some fun, shoot, learning and enjoy our camera.. :)

1st time im upgrading my 7d to 5dm3, Im not impress, but when I read the manual book and take some pictures, I found my 5dm3 is really amazing camera.. and still using my 7d for landscape and xploring my 5dm3..
You are correct.

I don't have as much problem with limited DR as with HOW it's limited.
My 40D and old Rebels have virtually no detectable banding as base ISO. My 5d2 and 7D were pretty bad if I had to push the shadows.  I've pushed the 40D and even the old rebel bodies the same way with much better results.
And THAT, I believe, is the key of the whole argument.  Seems some recent Canon cameras were a step backwards in IQ at low ISO.  And it also seems to vary in severity from body to body of the same model.  I think I had a 5d2 and 7d that were somewhat flawed.  Sold them, was tired of the disappointing results compared to my other cameras.

Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 64