July 31, 2014, 07:54:24 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 61
Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?
IF it included the operational benefits you describe, then maybe yes. (it didn't work in the case of Pentax' K-01)

From what we see currently, people are using the A7r because it's providing the extra MP and DR you can't get anywhere else but Nikon at the moment and still allowing you to use your EF lenses.
So it's the ONLY option to choose from for a best-of-both-worlds compromise.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Answer to Everyone's Complaints
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:32:40 AM »
..probably at the expense of doing something useful.

Aww, man, you are SO right about that!  Sincerely.

But my question is, why bother?

I've not spent a lot of time on here for a while but came back recently only to find a lot of the same going on by a many of the same characters.  Sort of a study in web-forum psychology..

But, kind of like playing a pinball machine, I had to come back to deliver a smackdown.  ;)


I'll try take your suggestion and go do something more useful now, some things just can't be fixed/aren't worth the continued effort.

EDIT:  FWIW, i still do have and use a fair bit of Canon gear and am waiting for a 7d2, if it's worth buying.  If not, I'll be dumping the rest of my high end Canon stuff, keeping the old stuff that works well and continue with ABC cameras (anybody but canon)

Third Party Manufacturers / DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro
« on: June 05, 2014, 12:21:07 AM »
Would you believe the results of testing a drug for Alzheimer's disease in a population of 20 year olds with asthma? 

coming from you, ya, it's not impossible

Note that I said my Canon sensor in the use case I described.  The point was, people make assumptions about their own, personal definition of 'better' without regard for the fact that their needs don't define the needs of everyone else.

Come back when m4/3 is outperforming FF sensors, we'll talk.

sure, don't let facts you don't like get in the way
In case you forgot, the thread's about Canon tech, and when are we gonna see some improvements.

If you didn't like the previous smackdown try this one; using an old-tech D3s with the same kind of pixel-size-advantage BS you tried to pull off in your data comparison... tho even less of a size advantage for the Nikon this time.

Even the old D3s has the 1Dx beat pretty much across the board. Screen OR print normalized. (screen presented data from DxOmark)
FWIW, you can compare a D700 to the group too, it only loses on DR at higher ISO.

So pay attention, YOUR 1DX is the red line, note how IT'S MOSTLY AT THE BOTTOM of every chart.

put that in your syringe and poke it. ;)

(tho likely to try BS his way out of it with more weasel-feces)

 :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P :P

EOS Bodies / Re: Debating on selling my 5D II and 35L/135L for a...
« on: June 04, 2014, 09:57:18 PM »
But I'm certainly willing to try one again - maybe I'll rent the latest one, with a prime or two.  If your rabbit photo is ISO 6400, that's not bad at all....  Even so, they seem very expensive for what they are; for the same price as a Fuji Xt1 you could buy two Sony a6000s or almost three Canon SL1s; or for a mere $200 more you could move up to a FF Sony a7r.

No, the rabbit photo was 1250 ISO but it's not even a 100% crop either.  I've attached an unedited 100% crop with intact exif from the OOC jpg.
I agree, even if the Fuji's are presenting slightly better images OOC, the price premium is NOT worth it and popular Adobe raw converters are still providing rather soft results compared to others raw processing SW.

rant - I bought an early XT1; i really like it, except for the worst buttons ever put on a camera body of any make, at any time! (Canon 60D is even better)
- /rant

OK, back to the camera.  For considerably less $ you can get a much better featured Nikon D5300 that doesn't exactly eat the Fuji's lunch, but certainly could be said to edge it out in many ways.
OTOH, many of Fuji's fans are raving about the quality of the lenses and ... I'm starting to agree.  There's something about the way they render an image I find very pleasing vs mainstream glass.  Fuji really knows how to make lenses and even their low end kit lenses perform very well.

I was using an XE1 + 18-55mm this weekend for some close-up shots and am really pleased with the results.  No editing required, directly OOC was good to print.

Of course, a camera is more than just a sensor.  But I'm still waiting for your facts showing how my Canon sensor is worse at higher ISOs...

Gee, Neuro.  Would you write up the drug test studies with cherry-picked data too?

You know, I've heard that some DrugCo's double-blind placebo tests
 used spiked placebos to make test subjects have more nasty side effects
 using the "placebo" than they do when using the new wonder-drug? ;)

In the crop sensor and smaller world, the results are notably different.

And remember the MFT is outperforming Canon's latest crop sensor using with only about 60% of the surface area of an APSC...  And the prices are similarly ratio'd.

These are all presented as SCREEN rather than PRINT data; don't want any of that funky downsampling math to make the differences even bigger.

And to make it more relevant to you, I think Canon probably sells more 70D bodies than 1DX bodies.
That's gotta count for something, eh?.. ;)

(Data provided by DxoMark)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The Answer to Everyone's Complaints
« on: June 04, 2014, 09:01:04 PM »
Aw jeez, I already gave over $20k to my LCS to REWARD Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and Olympus for their outstanding R&D work resulting in high performing products that meet my needs.

EOS Bodies / Re: Can Canon deliver a FF sensor that is class leading?
« on: June 04, 2014, 08:59:36 PM »
The other thing that has confused the issue for a long time is HOW the SNR & DR is measured.  Using a max signal / RMS noise value can be misleading.

if all the noise sources are averaged to an RMS value then that obscures the limiting effect of patterned noise to which we are much more sensitive to seeing than smooth, random distribution of noise. (given as our eyes are actually contrast-sensors, we see even very tiny variations quite readily, especially if they are regularly spaced)

The noise levels need to be presented as having a peak to peak value and spacial frequency as well.

If that were the case then some rather bandy sensor systems, like the 7D and my early model 5D2 (and numerous others as well from other mfrs too), would likely have scored a lower overall SNR and therefore a lower DR as the pattern noise would have been accounted for its effect on the overall imaging system.

Can anyone suggest a good method of calculating such a measurement?  It needs to account for the peak-to-peak noise signal and how it degrades overall image quality.

E.g.  The 8 pixel wide stripes of my old 5d2 would have a certain peak-to-peak noise variation to generate those vertical stripes.  Taking an RMS value of that noise to do the SNR calculation disquises how deleterious the patterned nature of that noise is and that its overall effect would be visually worse than even the lower SNR that would be calculated from max-signal / peak noise value.

Audio systems used to spec SNR as a dB level and also include the "no discrete audible tones" claim.

The banding noise of a camera sensor system is much like listening to an audio recording that has some line-frequency "hum" in it...  Generally more annoying than a random white-noise "hiss" of comparable RMS value.

But Canon are selling lots of camera, more than the others, so what Canon is doing must be ok, right?
Yup, it certainly works for Canon and all those users who are satisfied with the product.
Lets face it, Canon's sensors currently rate bottom of the rung so whilst Canon might be getting lots of people to buy their equipment, there is an increasing number of people that won't buy anything again (or recommend Canon) because there's just no incentive to upgrade for "better IQ."
Altho today's "bottom of the rung" is not all that bad, is disappointing Canon have not yet done better.  The other mfrs have caught up or passed them, even with limitations imposed by physics causing a handicap for the MFT sensors.
I will only recommend Canon for users who like an easy to figure out camera and who aren't likely to exceed its limitations.  That's still a lot of potentially satisfied users. 

For me, and others of my ilk, Canon doesn't offer anything compelling enough to buy yet.  The longer it takes for them to bring something better to market the less likely I am to keep waiting.  I've already sold most of my high end Canon gear and will eventually sell the rest if I'm using it less and less.
I've only got one L lens left and have been waiting a long time for a 7D replacement to put it on.  But it has to perform better than the current 70D to be useful.  If not, I'll be going MFT and saving weight and money in the process while only losing out some low light AF ability which, frankly, I don't really need.

From a different perspective, a change of less than 90 degrees shows how relatively flat the lighting was otherwise... Altho this was shot with a Fuji.  EDIT - within about 1 minute of the last shot with the D800.

OK I give up! - "Why isn't Canon working on DSLRs with higher dynamic range"??????
Am I missing something? I have yet to have problems  with the Dynamic range capabilities of any Canon DSLR that I have owned.
I have used several Nikons (D800/800E + others) that are alleged to have increased Dynamic Range but, frankly, I was not too impressed wit the results, lenses perhaps? I read that they have higher DR at low ISO - perhaps they do - but I was not impressed by the overall IQ.
I am not saying that my cameras are perfect, but what I am saying is that they have yet to let me down in the DR department.
Am I just exposing properly?

Could be a different tone/gamma curve that makes things pop or look more appealing from your Canon compared to other bodies.

Here's an example from my D800E.

I was looking at backlit granaries in a grassy field last weekend, with a partly cloudy sky.
I was using my d800e with 70-200.  As I framed the shot I was looking around at the 3 main elements in the scene and noting their relative brightness to each other, within the VF.  Within the constraint of the optical VF, it's easy to do that.

I could clearly see all the cloud detail in the viewfinder
I could clearly see all the detail of the granaries' shadow sides simultaneously
I could clearly see the grass detail as well.
This scene did not, visually, appear to have a lot of DR.  But it does have enough to make the camera's standard tone-curve/gamma interpretation for jpg appear flawed when shooting it.

If you expose to retain the cloud detail without clipping, the shadowed structures look too dark compared to how they look by eye.
If you expose a little more to bring up the structures' shadow area to look like it appeared in the viewfinder, the highlights get clipped.
After last week's discussion of how things look to the eye, I was suprised to see just how much my organic visual system was compressing the DR of this scene compared to the camera's (jpg) response.

There was no "correct exposure" for nailing this scene in one shot using the standard curves that produced the OOC jpg.  It had to be exposed to retain highlight detail and the darker areas will have to be brought up in post in order that it should look at is appeared to my eyeball looking at the real scene at the time of the shot.
Just using the exif data from the jpgs I use to catalog a shoot, the granaries and grass were about 1.5 stops too dark compared to the sky.  I manually bracketed 2 stops with 3 shots.  I'll use the one without highlight clipping and tweak the shadows and midtones in post so it looks closer to how it did in reality

to my eye:
- 1154 was very close to how the sky looked in the VF, reality was a tad brighter, maybe 1/3 stop
- 1153 is still a little too dark for how the grass and granaries looked
- 1152 was is slightly brighter than how the granaries looked but very close for the grass

All are ISO 100, f/4
shutter :1154=1/1250, 1153-1/640, 1152=1/320

So, even without a very challenging scene to shoot, some manipulation in post is required to adjust the image to make it look close to reality by lifting shadows to the point of low-midtones.  Most cameras can cope with this small amount of shadow push without any FPN issues.
if I wanted to push hard enough to see what's inside of the open door of the round granary, then the Exmor sensor gives a better chance but that would be merely experimental as I could see no detail, with my eye, beyond that doorframe.

What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.

oh, gawd, no!  I like Fuji more than Canon.  But Fuji believes in doing good for the consumer, even if to their detriment at times.  It's a noble Japanese custom...  Apparently not so much so for Canon...  Well, Canon DID eventually release some updated firmware that unlocked hardware features that could have stayed hidden...
Yes, this might be interesting.

..and niche markets have a nasty tendency to become mass markets.


Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.

I'd like to know why.  I have Pentax too.  I like it but I tend to fall back to Nikon or Fuji more now.

I think the issue Aglet in particular has is that he sees himself as not being like most of us, you know, the "Common Folk"    those majority of "enthusiastic amateurs", the majority of those "Pros", the incredibly mentally challenged....Canon users, poor people, the misguided.
Well, you may be partly correct. Unlike you, perhaps, I'm not satisfied with Canon's product for all of my uses.  Now if you also feel like adding a "mentally challenged" category to that group... if the shoe fits, slip your flash on it and strobe along. ;)

The point is, for those of use who are not satisfied with the cadre of mediocre Canon sensors that place limitations on otherwise good gear, we have other options to go to, thankfully.

Why is it that people always give Nikon and Sony so much credit for being "leaders" when they both are now desperately trying to catch up to Canon by now offering lower megapixel, high ISO models.

So they can kick Canon's arse in another direction; hi-ISO, low-light, low-cost, video-capable bodies vs the other end they already own; Low-ISO, High-DR, High MP bodies.  That leaves Canon with the big, fat, boring, middle-ground of "good enough" which makes them a pile of money which apparently makes Neuro happy.  :D  He must own Canon stock as a portfolio diversification to protect against a possible loss of income from a large corporate Drug-Co it sounds like he works for.... Cuz, you know, they don't already have enough government concessions and lobbyists to ensure their long-term viability.  (sorry, was a good set up for a dig ;) I might just do stand-up comedy)

When did low ISO DR suddenly become 'most metrics'?  Oh, I see, you meant 'most important to Aglet and others who represent a minority of consumers'. 

Geez Neuro, did you miss the part where the other major mfrs now also have hi ISO performance that rivals or exceeds Canon's last bastion of sensor performance?  Even MFT with a smaller sensor is outperforming Canon sensors across most, if not ALL metrics as measured by DPR, IR and DxO.

A 'real explanation' from your personal, biased, 'I need to push images 4-5 stops in post' perspective.  I think you should ask Sella174 to explain the concept of 'minority' to you...

And what you got against "minorities" anyway?...  Do they get in the way of your corporate interests?
Do you think monopolies are good for anything?...  Canon had a virtual monopoly, can we see how much innovation happened during that time?
Yes, for YOU it's all about the shareholders. ;)  We don't all think that way.

And thanks to Sony's innovations, I CAN push 4 stops if I want to and I don't need to have great retouching skills to fix a mass of FPN that shows up if I try the same with a Canon file.  ABC cameras save me a lot of time compared to Canon bodies for that kind of work and when you're old and prone to getting cranky, it's good to not waste time on irritating products. ;D

Canon makes a system of cameras, lenses, flashes, etc., that collectively meet the needs of the majority of photographers in the world.  The sensor may only need to be be 'good enough' - recall that the 5DIII + Canon 24-70/2.8L II outresolves the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8G.

You just finished agreeing that Canon makes "good enough" products for the majority of users, which is what I said they did.  Sure, they make a few decent lenses too.  But good lenses don't make a system either.

Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead?
  I'll take Sellas line here.
faster pace of technology and performance improvement from everybody but Canon lately.
Even Nikon's N1V3 can do some tricks their flagship flapper can't.

What kind of photography do you do?  You're obviously not unintelligent or completely ignorant, but you strike me as the kind of person who sees everything from his own perspective, as though your type of photography is the only kind that's important.

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi.  He has a D800 and some nice glass.  He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up.  Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

If you shoot landscapes, or other slow-moving objects, you can get really great photos from Nikon, Sony, etc, especially using lens adapters and third-party (even Canon) glass.  If your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how good the sensor if the rest of the camera can't give you a well-focused shot at the moment you want it.

Thanks for a civilized approach to a contentious topic. :)

I don't do events, sports or wildlife, so I don't often need great AF systems unless I'm after birds on occasion.  My needs are primarily best possible IQ (highly maleable raw files) at lower ISO levels as most of my images are sunlit scenes with inherently wide dynamic range and processing those images into a useful print, the way I want to process them, means ABC cameras perform better in my workflow.

My gripe is less with Canon's products (they're making tons of profit with 'good-enough' products, why change) than with its fanbois who think that, "if only those complainers knew what they were doing then Canon products would do what they need."  And as voiciferous as some of those fanbois are, that's just wrong.  Canon has some inherent flaws that have been around a long time and some of us got tired of working around those problems and waiting for them to be fixed.  We don't have to hobble ourselves if we used ABC cameras instead but you might notice the most evangelical Canonites here are the ones who likely haven't learned how to make good use of ABC cameras or, the compromises embodied by Canon products actually are well suited to their uses so, they think if their mainstream or niche application can be filled by Canon gear then all such endeavors can be similarly satiated.  And I am happy to disagree with that sort of generalization. :)

..I would like some pressure on Canon to continue to improve.  However, I don't want them to drop all their strong features just to be a hunk of metal with a great sensor.
I certainly do not advocate for them to introduce more compromises in order to add improved sensor performance! I'm interested in seeing them catch up to where everyone else is in sensor performance as I'd love a 7d2 with clean low iso shadow performance.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 61