December 22, 2014, 03:11:16 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 73
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

But, the point is this: Did it stop me from driving wherever I wanted? Did I get to my destination late? Did I get more tickets? Did it, in fact, have the least bit of impact on the ability of me and my truck to get the job done and get to the destination we were headed for? No. Not in the least.

So, that's the way I look at the Dynamic Range debate. Would it be nice to have a little extra range? Sure. But like the sound system in any vehicle, it doesn't prevent your from getting to where you are going.

I nice analogy but, in scale and relevance, more akin to the neckstrap ring mounts on the camera than its sensor.  ;)

..If you're a fan of entirely predictable 'experiments' perhaps you'd like to drop an object – tennis ball, apple, your camera – from a couple of meters above the ground, and verify the existence of gravity.  Be sure to start a new forum topic to educate all of us on your findings.

Yes, I'm sure we' hear from a few anti-gravity types who will tell us that gravity is not really necessary or serves no practical purpose or that the experiments are contrived and have nothing to do with real life

I'll give it a shot

(argument from boredom :P)

1) What is, in your professional opinion, the camera body which produces the best quality images?
2) What are, in your professional opinion, the lenses for that body which produce the best quality images for the variety of scenes you frame?

Do you exclusively use 1 & 2?

If so, I concur that you have higher standards than [whomever].

If not, I assert that, while you may have high desires for image quality, you don't have higher standards.

both 1 & 2 vary, depending on the task/shoot.

Do you exclusively use 1 & 2?

HAHA!  It would be a lot cheaper if I did restrict myself to that.  ;D
I usually use the best practical hardware for the shot that gives me the results I want.
Sometimes I have to use what I've got available.

So easy to say, "MY image quality standards are higher than YOURS" when you're anonymous and can say whatever you want.  You can as easily say that you've flown to Jupiter and back ... with the same level of conviction, and just as much credibility.  But I'll grant you that your standards for pushing 4- or 5-stop underexposed nearly-black frames and rescuing them from the trash are higher than mine.  You'll win that argument every time.

Could Canon's IQ be higher?  Of course!  But the fact remains that Canon meets the IQ standards of some of the very best photographers.

Dude, I'm yankin' your chain because you're arguing silliness!
What the heck does who I am vs your gaggle of celebrities have to do with anything?!?

If I'm loading a roll of 24 or larger into my printer, there's better be some damn good image quality or it's gonna start to show.

Sorry for pickin' on you Keith, but you posted a good example for my argument back on page 1 of this thread.

If you take that otherwise lovely shot of photographers capturing the sweet lines of that backlit P-51 against a colorful sky, and try to print it much bigger than 12 inches wide, you're going to be treated to a bunch of ugly Canon-brand shadow noise that will be visible. (see my post on the next page)  To ME that detracts from the image, therefore it does not meet MY standards of image quality.  It was apparently shot with a 5d3, I don't know how it was processed.  If you're only printing "little pictures" or posting online then it's fine, the downsampling hides the problem.
I DO KNOW that if he'd shot that with any other brand at the moment, those shadows would be a lot cleaner and the image would stand up better to close scrutiny when printing it huge.

Do you now understand what I mean when I say I have higher image quality standards?
It means I would not use a noisy Canon for such a shot.  I've learned that by experience, not by listening to fanboys.
That doesn't mean you can't use that same noisy Canon for plenty of other shots and still get good results where shadow noise will not be a problem; it would then likely meet my high standards for IQ.

So if your precious gaggle of high ranking professional photographers is satisfied with using Canon gear then they're going to run into the same limitations Keith did if they try a shot like that.
So, how would you like to summarize that?.. (hopefully not by take some personal shots at Keith's abilities)

Well, Aglet's not quite as anonymous as you might suppose.

You can browse his website and draw your own conclusions.

I like this one.  It's titled, "9th Street Bridge, SW" but I'd call it "Stairway to Heaven" because of all the artifacts in the sky.  Really speaks to having a high standard for image quality in the way one showcases their work.

ya, my web site sucks, I should spend half as much time on it as I do here.
Would you like to look after the farm for me for a while so I can attend to that?

but I choose 1 of 2 options to protect images from infringement.
- watermark it in a very distracting way
- compress the tonality of it so you can't even make a small print but retain a semblance of the content
you can figure out which one and why

Meanwhile, would you like to order a 48x32" print?... It was shot with a 5d2, you like those. :p
I totally rocks on canvas where the texture helps to hide the residual noise that even DxO Pro couldn't quite eliminate.

73 does sound rather dubious for anyone in group B) to claim to have higher image quality standards than group A).

your argument logic is reminiscent of someone under the influence of too many wobbly-pops  ;)

MY image quality standards are higher than YOURS

go ahead, debate that. ::)

Landscape / Re: Fall colours
« on: October 01, 2014, 02:11:48 AM »
17mm f4L TS-E and 5DIII
I like it!
what f-stop did you use?
just wondering if stopping down more would reduce some of the upper corner CA with that lens..

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon's 2.300$ D750 said to best 5DIII
« on: October 01, 2014, 02:08:08 AM »
Maybe some things were just my ignorance of Nikon but I could not find a way to give me BOTH 1 finger access to changing ISO AND 1 finger access to using exposure compensation. It seemed it was an either or thing.

Did you give up before looking at the menus?  You can customize the controls to a great extent.

I have my d800s' rear control dial programmed to be direct ISO control and the front dial is for aperture in AV mode.
Press +/- button and rear wheel is EV comp.  I think you can flip those functions as well, if you prefer.
And you can define the controls differently for different modes if you like, very flexible but not as intuitive as Canon's more defined default approach.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 73