November 28, 2014, 04:11:37 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 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 73
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... :-\

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.

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?

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.
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.

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.

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.
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:
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.

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."

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.

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.

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)

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.

I can certainly agree with you on this.

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

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 11:19:52 PM »
To jump the ship just for that seems unwise to me. There are many other factors.
There certainly are many factors.
But, for some of us, clean raw files that provide maximum malleability in post are worth the effort and cost to ADD the gear, not necessarily SWITCH to it.
My 5d2 was a PoS so I sold it and got a FF Nikon that kicks butt for clean files.  Extra DR and MP are a bonus.  20 to 25MP were enough for what I needed in resolution, but I really needed NO pattern noise.  Certainly miss the 5d2's superior live-view, D800's LV is terrible in low light.

I still use Canon crop bodies, along with a few Nikon and Pentax too.  I use whatever tool I LIKE or is best for the shot.
I still like using Canons better than Nikons, but Pentax is very nice too if you don't mind lack of glass options.
If Canon makes a FF body as good as the Nikon for clean low ISO raw files, I'll likely buy it, especially if it arrives this year and doesn't cost more than $3-4k.

I just saw that Nikon updated their firmware.  For a whole host of cameras.

Does this mean that Nikon is more committed to their customers than Canon or simply that the firmware share lots of components and if a general (non-camera control) component is upgraded it is readily shared across the line ?

does look like some common features + model-specific ones

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 11:09:21 PM »
Aglet, how about you provide us a beautiful RAW file that you spend time, effort, and possibly money to get first? Please do show us the very best d800 RAW file of you very best work and then I promise I will do the same.

It must be your best, no less.

how about something easier, you show us some 100 iso test shots from your 5d2.... if you still have it.
Blank sheet of white paper, exposed at 1 EV values from +4 to -10, no Lum or Chroma NR, black level crusher set to ZERO, pushed in ACR or LR, until visible banding appears at 100%
Show us what EV levels you no longer get FPN.
Do and post that, then I'll do the same with a $400 Nikon.
OK, you go'head and do yours.  We're waiting. :)

D4, D3S, D3X, D3, D7000 and D3200 firmware updates added as well.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 01:51:22 PM »
I was pleasantly surprised by the improved sensor performance from Nikon’s modern crop bodies as well.
I’ve been too often disappointed by my early version 5d2 (which I’m now convinced was a lemon and got rid of) and my also early-production 7D, which I’ve also sold.
I should have returned BOTH of those turkeys to Canon as soon as I discovered the problems. On top of that, my 5d2 did often like to meter rather conservatively, usually under-exposing more than my other Canon bodies, but not consistently.  I hated that thing!  The only time I got consistent and decent results with it was shooting fully manual where lighting wasn’t changing faster than I could keep up to it.  In variable and mixed lighting (incl flash fill) i often got inconsistent and under-exposed results from it.  A major frustration when I could easily get reliable and consistent results from my other Canon bodies in similar conditions.

Since nobody here’s ever offered their 5d2 raw files or shot test samples to compare FPN, all I’ve had to work with were files DL’d from I-R.  Their raw file could be pushed a LOT more than mine could and not show significant FPN.  My 5d2 files would show FPN from shades as high as 3EV below metered zero if those shades were pushed as little as +1EV. This is totally unacceptable from a FF body of that cost.
I don’t think I’m the only one who’s experienced this either.  There seems to be a fair bit of variability in FPN performance within samples of the same model.  One CR poster even commented recently he sent his 1Dx back because of poor FPN performance so even pricey new models are not immune. (not sure if that was low ISO or not tho)

I still prefer the handling, color rendition and WB performance of Canon over the other mfrs.  I still have a handful of Canon crop bodies, newest now being the 60D.  Of the bunch, the 60D is the worst offender for low ISO FPN, but it is much better than my 7D was, but not as good as my late production 40D or even my old Rebels.
I’m still hoping Canon will produce a body with a sensor system that doesn’t have the high read noise problems that afflicts so many of their recent cameras.  The 6D is the best I’ve tried so far but still has some vertical banding visible around 400 iso on the sample I tested.  If the price drops enough, I’ll likely still buy one to try it.  Same with the 7d2 or 70d where I also need the better AF system.
I’m keeping my Best EF glass for another year or so.  If Canon does not produce a camera I can afford, that can provide low ISO with clean shadow areas like the competitors can, i will have held my breath long enough.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Crazy... go Nikon?
« on: April 02, 2013, 01:47:09 PM »
The vast majority of us DO know how to get the most from our gear, even with challenging exposures.
But, as in Ankorwatt’s dappled sunlit image, lifting some dark areas of even a reasonably exposed image will often show FPN.
It comes down to a matter of individual tastes.  I prefer the lightened look of the shadow lifted crop he’s shown.  I prefer slightly less lifted, actually, but even so, that would still be enough to show FPN.

Seems like many others are saying, “NO!  You shouldn’t do that!  It doesn’t look natural.”
To which I reply, “Like HEL_ it doesn’t.”  You need to actually LOOK at the scene you’re shooting, what can you see?  Are you going to represent the final image like you saw it or are you going to capture it within the limitations and compromises of your equipment and technique?

When you shift your gaze around a real-life scene, your eyes are very much a center-weighted-averaging-metered device. (more like between CWA and “partial” in Canon parlance)  If you were standing where he took the shot and were to look at that lady sitting in the shade, your eyes would adjust to provide your brain with a view more like the shadow-lifted example than the silhouetted version.

When I create an image like that, I want someone viewing that image to be able to look around it and see the kind of details they would see if they had been there, not the overly contrasted rendition provided by many cameras/software and seemingly preferred by many voiciferous shooters.  This is especially applicable to large prints, where you’re actually moving your gaze around from one area to another.  It’s not unreasonable to want or expect to see some detail in the darker areas as in Ankorwatt’s example.
Yes, this is a matter of TASTE.  If you like clipped shadows, go ahead and produce them.
I don’t like them, my customers compliment me on what they see when I process and print an image the way _I_ like it.  That’s what matters, the end result. 
As means to that end, i dumped my 5d2 and replaced it with a D800.  Works MUCH better for what I need from it.

So advising on matters of post-processing “taste” is a style argument and does not really address technical shortcomings of the actual hardware.  That’s best left to Canon engineers, we need to spur THEM to do better.

The argument still remains, however, that some cameras do not allow us to produce images that meet some of our tastes in some conditions whereas other cameras ARE capable of doing just that without difficulty or extra work.  This will remain the case until Canon can remedy their read noise problems.  If you shoot Canon and want to lift shadows then you are stuck with optimizing the compromises or other work-arounds.

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 73