November 27, 2014, 08:26:32 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 ... 73
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.

66 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.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why would Canon pick this combo?
« on: October 01, 2014, 01:50:17 AM »
Maybe they think if you purchase a L lens you may be motivated to purchase a FF camera in the future.
They lost me as a customer some time back with the disappointing performance of the 5d2.
They may snag others coming in to the game tho.

But I did just that a few pages ago with a 5DII - dig!c 4.

And thank-you for doing so.
You provided me with the opportunity to see that at least some 5d2s could perform fairly well in this manner.
Tho without having the actual file to play with and not knowing the exact processing parameters it doesn't address all doubts that's it's as good as a pre-Digic 4 bodies for base ISO FPN.

In my experience the Dig!c 4 cameras do have more FPN that both the earlier and later versions but it is buried so deep that it is just irrelevant 99.9% of the time to 99.9% of people.

Well, with that admitted I can only add that I continue to suspect some Digic 4 bodies were better than others.
I know my 5d2 was a disappointing performer in this regard.  I still got lots of good images from it but I could not use it for the kinds of shooting I expected to from a camera at that price point.  Ironic since my much cheaper, older 40D was able to provide better files with respect to low ISO FPN.
When I did a quick test and found the 5d3 was really no better than my 5d2, disappointment continued.
A very stripey 7D did not improve my opinion of this aspect of their cameras.

Altho overall SNR has improved only slightly at base ISO for recent models like the 70D and 6D, I'm glad to see visible reductions in FPN over the previous couple generations.  If Canon can at least keep the FPN out of the raw files, it makes a big difference even if overall SNR and DR are still below Exmor levels.

Saying "it depends on what they shoot" works both ways.  The list of photographers I made represents an extremely diverse range of shooting conditions, subjects and styles.  Their work is out there for anyone to see.  The work of antonymous sensor critics on the internet is ... not as visible.  So claiming to having higher image quality standards than some of the best photographers on Earth is pretty dubious.

Image quality is, to me, not very subjective.  I'm only considering the results produced by the hardware used.
I'm not alone here with very high quality standards in that regard.
If you haven't run into such hardware limitations you're staying within your handicap.  If you're using various workarounds "that have been around for a century" then you're accepting a compromise or exercising an artistic choice to work within those limitations.
Some of us have artistic choices that require better hardware with less limitations to fulfill.  That's how progress happens.

No doubt some of those photographers have complained about things they wish to be improved, and yet they still shoot Canon.  Perhaps they know more about image quality than anonymous critics on the internet.

pure speculation

No one said that Canon is perfect and no one says "how dare you not declare so and so brand to be perfect".  Describing people as getting defensive or agitated about "how dare you not declare so and so brand to be perfect" is just a big, fat, empty straw man of an argument, just a deliberate misrepresentation of what people are actually saying in this thread. 

I think he was paraphrasing.

Some people here react to this debate far too emotionally, with lots of passion and only a few facts.
The OP has not only shown examples, he's also provided his raw data and used a lot of his personal time and resources to do so, only to receive insult on top of (literal) injury.
Some of us have bolstered his findings with more examples.
Point is, these are facts, not opinions, about sensor system capabilities of Canon vs Sony.
It can be summarized as such:
- Canon is good enough
- Exmor is excellent
... in the one sensor metric where they differ substantially, low iso SNR and FPN.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why would Canon pick this combo?
« on: September 30, 2014, 03:05:54 PM »
I'm on that Canadian pre-order kit too.
It's a good enough deal that even after the body price drops and, I suspect, the lens price will be reduce significantly too for some yet unknown reason, that you'll still have a better value than buying separate or will allow you to sell without loss.

over at IR

seems they've done some careful thinking about their approach to the system and will be interesting to see how it plays out

Technical Support / Re: 6D pattern on image?
« on: September 29, 2014, 04:36:24 AM »
There appears to be faint horizontal banding, nothing surprising.
But yes, do confirm that with some other shots.
Then you'll know whether or not to ....  Oh, I was just gonna wisecrack here but I feel your pain.

Sorry, tools like that do not meet my standards of image quality, not when they come with that kind of price tag.
If you're happy with them, great.  But image quality like this is the reason I dumped Canon and went to ABC cameras.
Most people likely would not notice the noise, I sure do, much as I listen to the silence between the music.

Apparently your standards of image quality are higher than those of photographers who shoot with Canon ... Sam Abell, David Burnett, Patrick Demarchelier, Greg Gorman, Lauren Greenfield, Gregory Heisler, David Hume Kennerly, Douglas Kirkland, Antonin Kratochvil, Vincent Laforet, Annie Liebovitz, Don McCullin, Eric Meola, Peter Read Miller, James Nachtwey, Martin Parr, Paolo Pellegrin, Denis Reggie, Sebastiao Salgado, Mario Sorrenti, Pete Souza, Joyce Tenneson, Damon Winter, etc.  I know some of them don't shoot Canon exclusively, but with all of the talk about Canon's poor sensors, it's a wonder they shoot Canon at all.  Those folks just don't have image quality standards like you do, or maybe they just photograph easy-peasy stuff without too much dynamic range. ;)

My standards ARE high.  Is that a bad thing?

When I see a great image, like the one a few pages back, that's marred by muddy shadows full of chroma noise and banding that I find obvious even at a 2 and 3 MP reduction, there's a problem with the CAMERA, not the photographer.
See and think for yourself, spewing a bunch of random names is meaningless to me and pointless to your argument if these are supposed to be pros.  Many big name pros have an army of photoshop'ers working behind the scenes to fix the problems.
While you're at it, why didn't you include Joe McNally?  There's a guy who knows how to use light to make an image, whatever gear he's using.  Canon likely bought him off with a crate of RT600s, saves him a bunch of setup time but I wonder if he's secretly using Nikon when he's alone in the woods... ;)

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