September 03, 2014, 04:00:44 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 64
Canon General / Re: DxOMark vs. Reality
« on: January 15, 2013, 11:58:08 AM »
How come the 5D2 IQ was impeccable before the D800? I find it still impeccable today. :|
it was not when it was released
it is not much better after all the firmware updates
it made a big splash being the first CHEAP full-frame and those who wanted or needed that were so enthused with this new toy they paid little regard to its IQ shortcomings because it offered IQ benefits and features previously unavailable.

Endlessly trumpeting on that basis suckered me in to buying one; my most regrettable Canon purchase.
not for lack of due diligence, but for lack of honest and clear information about the 5D2's weaknesses, which became clear enough after I used it for a while. .. and after others began posted about its less than ideal low ISO FPN issues.

If you still find it meets your needs you either lucked out with a good one or you don't mind crushing your blacks a few more levels than some of us.

edit adding DxOmark comment below:

and THIS is what annoys me about DxOmarks results. not just that they assign a vague overall score to a camera, based solely on measured sensor merits, but that they do not adequately disclose the testing criteria and data in a way that would allow the technically astute reader the opportunity to evaluate the data on their own.  And, for the most part that I've found, neither do other sensor tech sites.

When FPN affects a sensor to the degree some of the Canon's (and some other mfr's products) were affected, it would have been very valuable to have a good idea whether the noise was random and acceptable or whether it was patterned and possibly objectionable to prospective purchasers.

DxOmark's data is useful but incomplete and that makes it much less useful than it would have been in my particular instance.

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:46:55 PM »
FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

For the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:25:19 PM »
Isn't someone going to say EF-S 18-55? It's supposed to be the number one Canon lens for numbers produced.... someone has to like it.... anybody?????

its not a very good lens, if they upgrade the optics to be the same as the 18-55 EF-M it will be a big improvement for this kit lens

For all its issues, I still love the EF-S 18-55mm IS for its flexibility, price and weight.  You just have to understand its weaknesses to be able to enjoy this lens at least for casual photography.  I for one can't complain on some of these pics:
definitely great performance per price and good for close up work if you don't need or have a nice macro.
or when you need a lens for hazardous work that's likely to result in, uhm, damage.  Combine with a 2nd-hand Rebel.

Lenses / Re: 17-40 vs 16-35, which one got the mojo ?
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:56:45 PM »
I've found the 17-40 comparable with the 16-35 between apertures of f/8 - f/11. f/4 is a bit tricky though and best avoided unless left without an option.

I've would recommend that the OP should go through the image threads for both the lenses and (i) try to see the difference in IQ; and (ii) decide which lens has "mojo" that you are looking for.

I think that sums it up - if you are shooting primarily landscapes with a tripod or are doing studio work between f/8 and f/11 it probably doesn't matter which lens you buy - you may as well choose the cheaper option which is the 17-40.  If you need to shoot at f/4, the 16-35mm is probably better.  And of course if you want the subject isolation you get with f/2.8 or you want to shoot action, the 16-35 is probably your choice.

I haven't bothered with the 16-35 v1 cuz it's not sharper than the 17-40, v2 looks significantly improved.
I found the 17-40 has really poor corner performance at the wide end, mushy even when stopped down a lot.  Performance varies with subject/focal distance. Seems worse at long landscape distances. But it does have a little more "something" when used on FF compared to the 10-22mm on crop, which I still do use occasionally.
FWIW, you can buy and try a used 17-40L and resell it if you don't like it and probably lose less than the rental cost.

FWIW, I've recently tried (by way of purchase) a new Tokina 17-35mm f/4, hoping to find a lens that performed better at the wide end than the 17-40 f/4 L. (to use on my FF F-mount system)
I've only done some flat-field, close-in test photos and a few other landscape types.

It's the only lens whose FF corner performance, at least on the near flat-field tests, was absolutely abysmal. Pure mush at any f stop.  Real-world images at normal distances were better but still poor corner performance until about 24mm.
Accutance was otherwise quite good in center and border areas and geometric performance was very good, holding straight lines very well with minimal distortion.
However, for the price, I'd not take the Tokina over the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L.
On F-mount it's a cheap enough option to consider.

Lenses / Re: Reasons why 14-24L zoom will not be coming soon
« on: January 14, 2013, 03:09:19 PM »

A zoom will almost certainly have more distortion than the prime at 14mm.  Correctable, yes...but only by adding softness to corners already unlikely to be exceptionally sharp.

Again the Nikon example is being ignored, the 14-24 outperforms the 14 prime in almost every metric

Not ignored, but I'm not sure it's a relevant comparison. The 14-24mm is much newer than the Nikkor 14/2.8.   

Compare the 70-200/2.8 IS vs. the MkII to see how far Canon went in a similar period of time. 

The Samyang 14mm prime is even sharper than the vaunted Nikon 14-24 and much better in the corners too...  At the expense of a lot of bulbous barrel distortion in the middle.  Not much of a problem for nature but nasty for anything with straight lines not running right down the center of your composition.
So Nik's 14-24mm is a compromised but very nicely behaving UWA lens for a variety of uses and you get to pay many x the price for that.  Canonites can expect Canon to produce a similarly well behaved and likely even better optic but you'll be paying for that.

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:34:12 PM »
Hands Up!, the 100-400mm L
not the best lens by a long shot, hideous transition zone bokeh but when this thing delivers, it REALLY delivers.  Not my most used lens but has provided some of my most outstanding, mostly nature, images.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?
« on: January 14, 2013, 02:25:52 AM »
Space is mostly dark, eh..
Don't want to be using Canons that fill all that dark up with faint reddish stripes and such, gets confusing.  :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Are you really serious about 6D?
« on: January 11, 2013, 09:01:06 PM »
Please help me understand why people are excited about 6D? I cannot be excited about 97% VF, 1 x-pt AF, crippled 6D with wifi and facebook buttons. I will stick to a 5-year-old beloved 5D Mark II which is identical in IQ to Canon's newest sensors...

The 6D has a few IQ improvements over the 5D2 that ARE worthwhile.
100 and 200 ISO banding noise are almost completely eliminated compared to 5d2, my biggest complaint almost fixed.
6D's interface is better, center AF is better, quiet shutter is REALLY nice, hi ISO blows 5d2 away.

Lenses are generally limited to around 22 megapixels of resolution, and no zoom has ever been made for 35mm that can exceed 21.3 megapixels over more than 15% of it's center frame.
nope, plenty of good glass will outresolve even higher res sensors
my low cost Tamron 70-200/2.8 easily produces moire problems on my D800e, backing up what MR sez below. The lens is cheap cuz it's not well-featured but it IS sharp, end to end and right to the corners.
I have seen moire in pictures with a regular lens and a crop sensor 24Mp, equal to 54 Mp at a 24x36mm sensor
area, this means that the lens resolution are greater/ out resolves  the  sensor resolution.
The best lenses today handle  more than 54Mp .
More pixels gives also better tonal transitions, less jaggies, easier to correct CA, crop etc etc

The point therefore of the 6D is that it has less than HALF the noise of the 5D Mark III and 60% better shadow recovery while having enough megapixels for any lens or just under.

The 6D really shines at super high ISO though, at ISO 16,600, the 5D Mark II has the same ISO performance as the 6D at 51,200. Thats 3 times better high ISO, in addition to the 2 times less noise at low and medium ISO.

One might be mistaken to assume that the 6D has the same or equal resolution to the 5D Mark II, because it has 99% the linear resolution. This would be a mistake, the 6D has 13% MORE resolution due to an improved AA filter using the latest technology.

It's also lighter, smaller and has much better AF, the price will hit $1700 in 6 months too. Guaranteed.

all good things over the 5d2 and even 5d3, depending on your requirements

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: D5200 review
« on: January 11, 2013, 02:46:20 AM »
Not a big fan of TechRadar's reviews but, if they're consistent, their early review of the D5200 is looking impressive.

Looks like it's mostly ahead of the D5100 in sensor performance, add in the higher end AF system and 5fps this will likely be a great little camera.  Small pixels mean overall SNR is lower and it shows on that particular graph.
Usable thru ISO 3200.
6400 and up if you don't mind it getting muddy looking.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 60D Stock Levels Getting Low?
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:29:16 AM » much for waiting for ces for an announcement on the 7/70D and possible release date. Looks like we wont see either of these cameras for another 6months at least. Disappointed isnt the word. Just seems crazy these cameras are from 09/10 and are the current top of the line aps-c, what are they playing at?

Oh well.
7D2 / 70D would go against Nikon's unannounced replacements for the D300s and the D7000.
I think it's becoming a waiting game between these pairs of cameras.   Whoever announces first gives the other the opportunity to improve or change their product before making it public.
I was expecting one of them might let the cat out of the bag at CES but there's also CP+ in a few weeks in Japan...  Not that that's any guarantee anyone will blink then either. 8-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:22:12 AM »
how often does anybody shoot at faster than 1/1000 anyway?
I do.  Often.  Nuff said.
I very rarely even need to use 1/4000, only occasionally 1/2000.
Any less light required, a 2 to 4-stop ND filter is a cheap solution.
not having faster than 1/4000 is not a deal-breaker.

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 11, 2013, 12:17:11 AM »
You misunderstood what I meant (I think), Canon can  with several more rows of black / covered pixels offset the accruing noise already  at the readout.(CDS)  Nothing to do with PP work

I did misunderstand what you meant, i read too fast.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yes, that's a perfectly feasible method and may even be doable even in firmware as-is with the existing masked pixels?

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 10, 2013, 05:41:47 PM »
Read noise and fixed patter noise   can easily been level out / removed with black frames,..
true, but that's more PP work than I want, or any of us should have, to do to get a decent low ISO image

There are also banding  where  the read out levels are  uneven calibrated  to the ADC , like the  problem with the first 7d.
Sold my 7D because of that, tired of those 8 pixel wide strips in the shadows because the dual readout channels were not properly matched

If Canon would  they can limit the read-out noise, others with the same type of readout and signal path to the ADC can do it. ..
That's what I'm thinking. There are other sensor systems out there that are made more like Canon's than Sony's and they still perform better than Canon.  Obviously the technology exists for Canon to improve their read noise, and their read noise variation, even without spending a lot on developing a sensor as good as Sony's, etc.

The 6D is the best for reduced low ISO pattern noise I've seen since the 50D came out.  Their earlier cameras did not seem to suffer from FPN nearly as much.  Seems that when they added video capability, that's when things started to go sour.  Even the live-view capable 40D and 400D didn't have the FPN isssues as bad as later models like the 7D, 5D2, etc.

All this juicy sounding Fuji talk is making me want to buy one to see what it can do!
Not that I wouldn't anyway..  Was just a matter of when. but by the enthusiasm you guys have for it I might boost it up my priority ladder.  I already know the IQ can be very impressive from them but the overall handling sounds to be pretty good and I'd like that.
Gheez.  And I'm still waiting for the silly Pentax K-01 I ordered for dirt cheap.
Guess I'll wait and see what the new X20 performs like.  I'm not keen on spending midrange SLR prices for the bigger X bodies as I don't mind carrying a small SLR around most times as it is.
If that little X20 really performs for IQ and overall handling in its slightly smaller package that could be something I'd enjoy.  I already like the IQ from my G11 and G12 but the ergonomics and overall handling are really quite poor IMO.

Arghh.  And there's that Olympus OMD EM-5 too!
another very good overall package, altho a bit more than I'd care to spend right now as I'd want the grip and extra battery layer too.

EOS Bodies / Re: Which is better? 5D MKII or 6D?
« on: January 10, 2013, 12:24:57 PM »
here is what happening" since 2008" sensor  and  todays 6D sensor
improved  QE, higher FWC, but still a lot of read out noise  and low DR at base iso,
improved high iso, and less banding at base iso

however, the slight reduction in 6D's read noise figure does not tell the whole story.

We don't know HOW the read noise is calculated.  To me it seems they're taking an AVERAGE read noise value instead of a peak-to-peak read noise value.

The difference being you can have 2 levels of average read noise that are very similar, as in the 5d2 and 6d, but they can have different peak-to-peak values.
The peak-to-peak read noise levels are more relevant because the peaks are what become more visible in shadow areas.
In the case of the 5d2 the peak read noise occurs repetitively when going across the sensor horizontally, which results in a pattern of vertical noise stripes visible at lower ISO settings.  These stripes get obscurred by larger amounts of relative random noise as you increase ISO.
The 6d's low ISO readout noise is much more uniform from pixel to pixel, resulting in a smoother looking tone in the shadow areas.  This sort of noise also responds better to NR software so you lose less actual image detail because you don't need to smear the image so much to obscure the banding structures.

In this respect alone, the 6D is quite far improved over the 5d2 and even the 5d3.

As an overall package, I'd still consider the other improvements and refinements of the 6D over the 5d2 as significant.
I'm selling my 5d2 to fund a 6d. The 6d is Canon's best IQ per cost FF camera and if you don't need the performance features of the 5d3 or 1dx it's a no-brainer.
I don't care about video so haven't compared it.

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 64