August 29, 2014, 08:26:53 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 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 63
I love all kinds of cameras and have been lusting for one of these new Fujis for a while.  Altho I've seen an earlier model best my 5D2 for IQ at times I was just not familiar enough with them. The cost was high, and the raw workflow would be another direction I'd have to change; too many little factors held me back from purchasing.  I did like the way the X100 felt in my hand, if a tad "light."

The new X20 is hitting a price point where I could justify yet another camera in my collection and figure out what niche it best fills later.

Definitely not going to forget about Fuji now!

EOS Bodies / Re: What Canon Body is threatened buy the Nikon D5200?
« on: January 09, 2013, 01:02:28 AM »
all canon crops.
it not a competition anyway. its an outright flogging..

+1  ;)
and at a good price point too.
Let's see how the new, Toshiba-made, sensor performs.  It's supposed to be an improvement over the D3200's.
I'm certainly watching this one closely but won't pounce on one until the reviews are out, AF performance shows its worth in this body.. and maybe even the price drops a little.
LOTS of features in a compact body!

Nikon  has now another partner besides Sony, Aptina Renesas and it's Toshiba. The sensor in the camera is a Toshiba manufactured sensor.

I was just about to post that. :)
Toshiba's been out of the limelight in electronics for a while.  I hope Nikon was not exaggerating when one of their people said the d5200's sensor will not only be different from the d3200 but will also be measurably better.
Toshiba has the fab and tech to produce pretty much anything from heavy power devices to the best sensors so hopefully this is another source of top quality silicon fabrication for Nikon to tap into with their patents & licensing.

Which now leaves us wondering, what sensor and what will be the performance of it when it comes to Nikon's pro-level crop bodies; D400? D7200?..  They should better the consumer bodies by a little bit.
And is Nikon waiting for Canon to announce 7D Mark II or 70D before they release these new crop bodies?
Waiting game for all of us now.

Meanwhile, if anyone's looking, Pentax is selling off their Q and K-01 stock in north america and likely around the planet at really low prices.  I just ordered a K-01 with 40mm kit lens for a pittance.  Looked forward to finding out what it's good for; video perhaps.

Got to play with one a bit at the shop today, shot some dark frames and pushed them as i usually do to better visualize the pesky noise patterns.

The 6D is considerably improved over the 5d2 and even 5d3.  Although the total amount of dark level noise is not so greatly reduced, the subjective annoyance of its patterning is noticeably less.

5d2 could produce some fairly harsh noise lines (hor. & vert) in shadows at 100 ISO, they soften a bit from random noise at 400 ISO and up.

6d, at the same ISO settings, produces far less obviously structured noise lines.  THIS IS A GOOD THING! :)
Canon has actually made some significant improvement in this area over the older cameras!

6d's overall noise is more random and uniform, tho still exhibits some fine vertical stripe structures at 400 ISO, similar to 7d's low iso noise but not as severe.  Overall there is still some coarse but smooth transition variations in horizontal and vertical axis, almost like large blotchiness.  This would not show up on large prints anywhere near as bad as 5d2 or 7d noise stripes.

6d's subjective total noise at 400 iso is similar to 5d2 at 100 iso.  And the 6d's noise would clean up better with NR software.

6d's high iso performance is impressive!
I could print a decent 6x9" from a reasonably exposed 25600 iso shot! (larger if not too fussy)

So, altho 6D's dynamic range will not be significantly better than 5D bodies at low ISO, its raw files should provide more post-processing leeway because of the reduced severity of patterned noise. Its extra performance at high ISO is a definite bonus.
Fussy shooters who do a lot of post-processing should definitely consider the 6D over either 5D body if low ISO performance is critical to their work.

 SoNikon sensored cameras still do blow the 6D into the weeds with far cleaner low ISO data.
Hopefully Canon's (soon to be released?) next generation sensors will further improve on this dark/read noise issue.

As it is now, I am very tempted to sell my 5D2 to fund the 6D, it's that much more usable to me.

So would it make you feel better and as though you've accomplished something with your life if I say, "Ok, you win."
only if you actually understand, otherwise we're wasting time
Good job.  I actually have important things to do, like my career.
  . . .
  By the way, I bought the fan boy hype of the 5D2 and bought early and I wasn't disappointed.  Maybe photography is what you should focus on, rather than camera models?
35 years of photography and hybrid electronic, data-acquisition and mechatronic systems design experience, all apparently wasted.
Maybe I'll try again when I retire. ;)

@ RLPhoto - nothing personal but this near diatribe I've written here is a culmination of of seeing the same hash from the same multiple sources (pg7, pg8), you just happened to have been under the quote button.  :)
I believe you are over blowing the noise issue. All my landscape photos I submit to istock photos came from canon cameras and they have some of strictest standard for files. They do quite well for me.

If you get your exposure right, there should be no issues.

sigh... again... ???

I'm glad istock likes your stuff but that doesn't trump what I and a few other people here have said, repeatedly, ad nauseam about FPN (fixed pattern noise) problems with Canon cameras.

If you're not pushing the limits of your raw files for any artistic or DR compression purposes (and it's not all abstract, really) then you may as well shoot jpg because you'll not likely notice the difference.

It has NOTHING to do with "getting the exposure right."

It has only to do with FPN weakness of the imaging system.

Just because what you, any many others, do works for you, doesn't mean it works for everyone.
We don't shoot the same subjects, we don't shoot the same way.  If we did, it'd be pointless for us to both be doing it.  What you do is not any more "correct" than what I do, it's just different, and the tool you find adequate does not work well for me.

You want to paddle a canoe with a canoe paddle, sure, works good.
You try paddle a kayak with a canoe paddle, it's not so good any more, is it?

Not all bodies of a given type exhibit FPN at the same level.
I have an early 5d2, I had an early 7d.  They both sucked with serious FPN, and so did many other bodies produced in the same time frame. (& yes, I've complained to my local Canon rep directly)
You (RL) may have lucked out with cleaner versions of these same bodies.  I, and many others, did not.  And the way I want to use the gear I paid good money for is compromised because of these problems.  That initially rendered some very expensive outings and shoots a serious loss because I do not accept images with this kind of flaw and even sophisticated post-processed is unable to adequately ameliorate the problem.
FWIW, my 40D, 60D, 350D, 400D, 450D, G11, G12, and needless to say my recent Nikons and even my new Pentax Q, suffice for the same kind of "extreme" shots the 5d2 and 7d fail at because they don't have FPN to the same extent; so can you still tell me it's my technique?  Part of my fun comes from pushing the limits of low end cameras to get good images.  It's pretty disappointing when "high end" cameras have worse IQ than some very much lower end cameras.

The simple fact is that my 5d2, even with latest firmware, shows FPN in shadows of PROPERLY exposed images, even without any significant shadow lifting. It's not the only lousy 5d2 either.  Plenty of people have noticed this same FPN issue, they've posted it in these forums, they've mostly all been rebuked by the regulars, some of which should have the technical knowledge to know better since I've seen such demonstrated regularly.

I'm still hoping Canon will pull a rabbit out of their hat this yeat with new sensor tech that will drastically improve low FPN and low ISO DR while we're at it.

Have a look at my first post on page 5 of this topic if you missed it.

This topic has devolved so far from the OP's initial query as to likely have bored them.  It started off with good intentions in the first few pages but here we are again. :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« on: January 04, 2013, 01:08:02 AM »
all of you who are interested in small/big pixels. noise etc.
read this papers by Emil
Thanks for the link, MR.
I'll read that and see what else I might learn from it.

I haven't examined pattern noise in detail from too many cameras other than to notice that some banding is fixed (sensor system hardware) and some is inconsistent but repetitive (electronic subsystem interference, e.g. from noisy power supplies)

you guys are SO funny.
Humor your way of acknowledging defeat? ;)

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself...   ;D
Its only a problem if you miss your exposure 3 stops.  :o
or just dial back your contrast setting, or try Canon's own built-in LANDSCAPE style. Try both if you like stripes.
boost shadows another stop or 2 if blind or on uncalibrated monitor.

Those of use who bought the Canon fanboy hype about the 5d2 and purchased early were richly disappointed.
Mine sat unused in a drawer for most of a year until I found that the firmware updates actually improved things enough to make the camera usable without obvious MIDTONE banding any more.  MOST times anyway.

If you forgot, have a little refresher.  We're here to educate and elucidate:

see FIRMWARE topic on the wikipedia page

I have an Epson R3000 printer and I swear by Red River Paper.  My two favorites are Polar Pearl Metallic and Artic Polar Gloss.  They have sample packs and icc printer profiles on their web site.

ditto with a friend of mine
I'm running an R3000 now and have only just started using it.  Epson's semi-gloss has a look I like for many shots, about to try their semi-matte.
Used to have some of my outside printed stuff, especially B&W, printed on a matte surface photorag by Hahnemuhle, not sure the exact one now.  It was roll product and we had tremendous problems with the coating spalling off after printing, leaving annoying white flecks or even large patches!
Images, otherwise, looked fantastic but a 1 out of 3 success ration was far too costly.
Looking fwd to trying it again in sheet form as the depth it produced I have not seen matched by other papers.

...for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance

For them, no dSLR (not even the D800E) will suffice. 

EDIT:  but wait, I just checked DxOMark, and the D800E has a better sensor than the Phase One IQ180.  Now I'm the one who's confused...   ::)

Funny, i KNEW you were going to make a snide reference to an MF camera. :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon DSLR Body Rumors for 2013
« on: January 03, 2013, 12:43:45 PM »
.. Microlenses improve Q.E. by increasing the number of photons that actually make it all the way to the photodiode, but photodiode capacity is entirely dependent on area...and in that respect, all else being equal (which is pretty much the case these days), larger pixels are still better.

I still wonder about another technology that could add some improvement to the overall QE and that's an old tech called "black silicon" from a few years back.
basically, I think it was a nano-structured surface that reduced reflectivity of the sensor (not sure if it can also work on the microlenses and AA filters) so that more photons got into the Si to do their work generating image electrons.

Even if such a surface treatment did not appreciably improve the QE, it'd still be nice to reduce the overall reflectance of the sensor+AA array which could help with overall contrast, flare and ghosting to some extent.

The IQ of the 5DII wasn't the 5DII's problem.  The 5DIII fixes pretty much everything that was a problem with the 5DII - AF, frame rate, VF coverage, etc.  Sorry, but a 5DII owner who doesn't see the 5DIII as an upgrade is blind...and might see better looking through the VF of a D800.

5d2 IQ certainly was and still is a problem for many people.
Did you forget that it showed vertical striped noise patterns in low ISO midtones when it first arrived?  Striped blue skies your preference?..  ;)

5d3 did little to fix the IQ problem but certainly presented a much better overall camera for event shooters.  Good for them.

For those of us who want the best IQ, in preference to overall system performance, the 5d2 is a failure. It has worse (pattern) noise character than my 40D.
The 5d3 is no improvement for those who still need ultimate IQ rather than overall performance.

The 6d might actually be the viable alternative for unsatisfied 5d2 owners who don't need to pay extra for the unneeded speed and AF of the 5d3 and aren't ready or willing to move to another platform. 
I haven't yet tested it myself but from what I've gathered so far it seems the 6D's IQ does improve noticeably over the 5d2's AFA banding noise issues + it has much improved hi ISO and low light AF ability for those times it's required.

File size complaints re the D800's raw files?...  pointless.  If you spend the $ on gear you have to realize you need a modern computer to keep up also.

No it isn't pointless, it is a significant cost factor involved in the decision making process that is too regularly dismissed with the casual "HDD's are cheap" meme, add in a $2,000-4,000 computer and your D800 is not so cheap! Sure if you are a pro and can write this stuff off against income, but many are not and when all is said and done it is the bulk market of amateurs that keeps the pro gear R&D going, sure Canon and Nikon might make money off pro gear but that isn't where the bulk of their income or profits comes from.

I guess I meant to say, "it's pointless complaining about it."
You know the larger file sizes will slow down post-processing so it's not coming as a surprise.
Stepping up to higher res is a 2 step process, the camera+glass, then the post-processing ability.

I have a 2010 iMac with an i7 and 12GB of RAM and it's just fine for my PP needs, even for large stiched panaramas.
If I had to process 100s of shots per day, then I'd want more speed but IF I WERE DOING THAT I'd have a faster computer or stay with a lower rez camera.
If you're doing that, hopefully you're making money at it and justify the cost of a faster computer.

if a hobbyist is upset about this, well... new computer's next on your wish list, I guess.
I don't worry about storage costs, storage IS cheap these days, when compared to all the other tech items.

6.   Assuming it’s true that the D600 has superior dynamic range, as we’re constantly being told, this didn’t reveal itself in any comparisons I made among the photos I took.  In one dark photo, just for the heck of it, I brightened shadows as much as I could in lightroom, but the only difference I noticed was that there was a bit more noise in the Canon image than the Canon equivalent – which I would have expected as it was darker in the first place.  (I seldom lighten shadows at all, and when I do it’s not by much, and the 6D’s images responded just fine.)   ..
That’s already more than enough, so I’ll stop!

Thanks for that bit.  That's what I'll be testing when I can spend some time w the 6D as I often take shots where I will be pushing shadows a fair bit.  good to know I may not be wasting my time. :)

Pages: 1 ... 37 38 [39] 40 41 ... 63