December 21, 2014, 04:53:48 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 - MichaelTheMaven

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
16
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 13, 2014, 07:06:16 PM »
Looks like we will disagree on this. It is kinda hard to measure supposedly 14.5 stops of DR on a 13.7 strip, with really 13.3 EV to work with. The way I see it, the slider does allow us to recalibrate the analysis, clipping the first point off starting from 2 stops in, Id love to understand why that is an unreasonable assumption. Add that two stops back in after the calculation and both cameras are well within the ballpark of much more expensive methods.

Again, if you have a better suggestion I am all ears.

17
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 13, 2014, 06:49:14 PM »
Im glad someone finally realizes that it isn't quite as straightforward as it should be. Ultimately, the ideal solution would be to have a 15 stop strip. My understanding of what I am doing now, is yes, I am throwing away the first part of the DR test because we pretty much know what it should look like, an over exposed first step, a few not over exposed and so on, and what we are doing is looking at the last 80% or so of it to try to measure its end performance. (We are throwing away about 2 stops if we are going the slider route, which I see you do not agree with).

Im all ears if you think there is a way we can do it better than this.

Thank you for your time

18
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 13, 2014, 05:29:30 PM »
When you say "get a good reading"...with what?

For example, if I clip out on the D750 in RAW, the swatch itself only has another 13.3 stops left to analyze. If a cameras DR is 14 or more, we wouldn't be able to see it because of the limit of the strip.

When you suggest clipping out that first swatch, what that means is there won't be enough room on the remaining part of it. They don't make a strip with anything more. Ill think about this. 4 stop ND filter in front of a portion of it perhaps?

Ill have to check out that software in that case. Thank you again!

19
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 13, 2014, 05:01:07 PM »
Jrista- hey I wanted to thank you for taking the time to put that all together, I really appreciate it. Your comments and several others have really helped me with presenting this information in a much cleaner way.

Im a bit short on time right now, but I will do more DR tests in the future.

I have taken many different exposures (bracketed) and what happens is when clip out in the RAW file as it is opened, I don't have enough swatches on the strip to get a good reading.

Additionally, even at the same exposure settings and flash power, some cameras still exposure slightly differently, I see it all the time in side by side shooting.

I am very curious about the software you mention, is anything you are aware of that can measure the signal to noise ratio of a specific swatch? Maybe cropped? I have some ideas, but it would be easier to measure a specific swatch.

Im still curious if it would be reasonable to add the total Exposure Slider value (in this case 2.0) if my me more serves me correctly, to the swatch reading (lets say 32-33, would be 10.67EV, or 12.67 ev, minus the one over exposed swatch, for a total of 12.33EV.? If we could precisely measure the signal to noise ratio threshold on both swatches instead of eyeballing it, it could very well be a cheap and easy way to at least estimate the ball park DR.

BTW- the Epic Shootout on the D750 and 5Diii posted last night, thought I would share it with you here. Again, thank you guys for your help in clarifying what / how I was presenting it.

http://youtu.be/EsZtUZvoeO0

20
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7D Mark II - DXO, Tony Northrup, and You
« on: November 13, 2014, 04:41:26 PM »
What I don't understand are people who don't like or don't agree with his videos making threads calling attention to his videos.  If you don't like his videos, ignore his videos.  Simple.

To my knowledge, no one else is parsing this down into simple terms for the masses to soak in (except for odd, one-off efforts I've seen on YouTube).


I actually spend a good deal of my time doing camera reviews on Youtube and I try very hard to publish as accurate and as fair information as possible. (you can see my latest epic shootout between the 5D3 and the D750 here: http://youtu.be/EsZtUZvoeO0

From the side of the Youtuber, it is a lot of ridiculously hard work to create a Youtube channel. If you say one little thing wrong, even accidentally, you won't hear the end of it. Trust me I know first hand, and this is the risk we assume when we put information out there.

I have only watched a handful of Tonys videos, and I think he is making a good & sincere effort, on the other hand I have to agree that when anyone on youtube seeds incorrect information, it can be quite harmful. I have had many, many comments of my channel who repeat things they saw on other channels and I am left to correct this commenter because they believe something they heard, even if it was a simple misunderstanding. It feels endless. I can't tell you how many times I have had to correct someone who actually believes the concentration of light photons is greater on full frame cameras because tony said they "let in more light". I realize he was talking about surface area and greater sampling accuracy, but his audience hears "full frames let in more light", and interpret as they will.

The biggest problem with you tubers in general is imprecision in both comments and testing- it distracts from otherwise good content. Occasional careless personal statements thrown off the cuff like the 5D3 being good for Facebook comments do not help either. Once or twice, ok. Consistently? Not good for the long run.

I am also against any Youtube reviewer who gives advice or recommendations on cameras they haven't actually used in a real shooting situation. I understand the "preview" thing, but how in the world can they know about a camera's performance without actually using it? 

Tony must work very hard so I can have no ill will towards him. I get it. He (as well as many others) do however need to be more careful and precise with what they are sharing. I have seen him in the past post corrections for errors, so that is definitely a good thing to see and at least lets me know he is trying to be sincere.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 06, 2014, 02:22:20 AM »

I appreciate the comments and feedback.

As a secondary observation: Watching not only for the borders between steps, but even on clearly delineated steps for color uniformity is interesting - if it gets too colorful here on should netter expect either a similar effect or heavyhanded noise reduction on areas in the same zone of production pictures.

This is very excellent input. (about the actual tones from 2 side-by side swatches) I wonder what a good way to determine specifically at what point that happens. Some of the swatches look identical to me in the mid 20's, but it does seem there is a point that noise kinda starts messing everything up after a certain point.

Another thing you guys helped me realize, is that the exposure slider amount (which is in EV) to the point at which the first step clips out, minus that one step of over exposure, might be useable to calculate total DR. There is some headroom on the bright end, and if we are clipping out the first step, wouldn't it be the amount we moved that slider over in camera raw? Almost seems too obvious to be believable.

22
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 05, 2014, 01:39:59 AM »
A few comments-

The actual numbers on the the strip are all the same as step 1, with the exception of the last 3-4, these are different for some reason (the numbers themselves are actually darker- I do not know why). Number 41 is so dark, that without a special light, you cannot see it (it just looks black). 38, 39, 40 are increasingly dark as well. It might have something to do with the process the strip is meant to be used for. IDK.

The lighting set up positions were the same in all tests, double diffused, constant coverage and larger than the target area itself. I wouldn't know how to get it more even than it is.

This second time around, because there were so many cameras involved, there were some micro adjustments required on the light power itself, especially the GH4, who's iso only goes down to 200, not 100, so that had to be adjusted to compensate for the ISO change.

Still, my thought is clipping out the 1st step on every camera (which you can see it with highlight alert), that would be a calibration point for the rest of the 40 steps. Importing RAW files, obviously this is recoverable, which means there is still some head room and why I don't think it is a good test for total DR. Also, there were no strobe power adjustment changes between the D750 and 5Diii, and that wouldn't explain the differences in performance there.

I tried bracketing, the problem there becomes that we are using a 13.7 EV strip, once you burn off 4-5 stops, you only have 8-9 to analyze, so I my goal was to squeeze it down to the first step as a way to try to calibrate each cameras start point for the test.

Ultimately, I think the way to do it is with a 15-20 stop strip, but the only test I know of that works in that range is $3,500.

I appreciate the comments and feedback. Im listening. Im learning that I need work on how I present my methodology as well as why I did the test a certain way. 

23
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 05, 2014, 12:03:42 AM »
As promised, here are the Dynamic Range Test Shots I took. I redid the entire test, with more cameras, including:

- Canon 7DII
- Canon 7D
- Canon 5Dii
- Canon 5Diii
- Canon 70D
- Sony A7s (Not Slog)
- Panasonic GH4
- Nikon D750

For each of the images I am clipping out the 1st step of the wedge, leaving the other 40 or so for analysis, this overexposure is recoverable in RAW files, so Ive also included a screen shot of what I am doing in Camera Raw with the sliders.

Let me know what feedback you guys might have on how I can improve it. https://www.hightail.com/download/UlRTaklncG9tMEpBSXNUQw

Best wishes

Michael

24
EOS Bodies / Profeel.com has 7Dii bodies with and without lenses in stock
« on: November 04, 2014, 06:14:17 AM »
Just thought I would throw this out there, I actually bought my Canon 7Dii last Wednesday and had it here in Hawaii by Saturday. My buddy also got one from them and it arrived on Friday. They are legit and have both with and without kit lenses. I usually by nearly all my gear from B&H but sometimes if there is a hot camera out there, they seem to be able to get them out there before everyone else backlogged with pre-orders.

Call them up, tell them Michael sent you- they will ship it out same day of your order whenever they can.

BTW- I am not compensated in any way for this referral, I just know how sucky it can be waiting:

http://www.profeel.com/index.php/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-dslr-camera-body-usa-warrabty-9128b002-new.html

M

25
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:38:35 PM »
Thanks for the test, Michael. I'm glad you ran the test.


Given that you lifted the shadows, I think that can explain why they look brighter on the D750...there IS a lot more dynamic range to be had there. In my experience, lifting Canon shadows looks exactly like your Canon results, where as lifting A7r shadows look exactly like your D750 results.


I do think that showing the entire wedge, from the highlights to the shadows, both unprocessed as well as processed, and including the settings you used to process them, would help provide a more balanced review. It should head off the most predictable of human responses (which is quite prevalent on these forums) as well. ;P


Anyway, looking forward to seeing the full step wedge in both OOC and processed versions.

I see what you are saying here. Its black and white to me, but without showing what I am actually doing and how I am trying to get these 41 calibrated steps all in one shot, I can see how it would be confusing. Im out shooting now, Ill post something tonight to show how I am clipping off that first step in RAW, and then squeezing everything I can out of the shadows.

I know some people believe this is not useful or not a DR test, but I think the results are pretty obvious. If you have a better solution or idea, I would still love to hear it.

M


I'm someone who believes that the D750 has significantly better DR than any existing Canon sensor. I'm right there with you. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their sensor read noise problems for years, and I'm pretty fed up with their lack of progress. They may have reduced banding, that's good...but your test indicates that overall...nothing has really changed. Color noise is just as big a problem on the 7D II as it has always been (compared to the 5D III, you don't even need the D750 image to see that.) Personally, for all the time Canon invested in the 7D II, I find that extremely disappointing. It's disheartening, but, that's just my opinion. (I can only hope that sometime next year, Canon demonstrates some radical new sensor technology that improves IQ across the board, reduces read noise to unprecedented levels, etc. (I say unprecedented, because with Canon's turnaround rate for releasing new models, any new sensor technology they release will need to stand the test of at least three years...and all their competitor sensors that come out within that time.)


I just know that the resistance to and downright denial of the notion that improved DR matters, or that anyone is even remotely capable of performing a valid IQ test, or that Canon cameras might have a problem with anything, is extremely high here. I think your test is valid. It should may DTaylor happy, however I'm pretty sure if/when he comes along, he'll have some way of 'debunking' what your test clearly shows.


Your test may need fine tuning to get the best apples-to-apples comparison, and without a doubt more information will help keep the skeptics satisfied. I would show the full length of the test strip, show exactly what settings you are using in RawThearapy for your processing, and even share the RAW files themselves. That's the only thing you can do if you really want anyone to take you seriously. (And even if you provide everything, there are still going to be people who deny that any of it matters...)


I personally take your results seriously, but I've had my own first hand experience with cameras that use Sony Exmor sensors, so I'm not surprised by the results. ;)

Thank you for your post. Im not here to start any fights with anyone about anything.

The scrutiny in the past has actually been very beneficial and I have already learned that I was not clear enough in my description of what I am doing and was not effective in communicating how the test works. If I am not "impossible to misunderstand" in what I am doing, then I am at fault with what I am presenting and need to re-evaluate how to improve it.

What is the best way to share RAW files on here? They are kinda big.

26
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 02, 2014, 06:29:31 PM »
Maybe it's just me but I'd be more interested in the comparison of AF speed and accuracy between 7dii and d750, as the latter apparently has very fast and accurate AF.

The focusing system on the D750 is not as good as the 5Diii in the head to head test I'll be publishing this week.

I haven't tested the 7Dii the way I normally do, but my initial thoughts from shooting ~500 shots of windsurfers yesterday it is much better than both the 5Diii and D750. More cross types, (much) more AF point coverage.

It was a LOT of fun to shoot sports action with it at 10 fps.

The 7Dii sensor is different than the 70D sensor.

27
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 01, 2014, 09:25:06 PM »
Thanks for the test, Michael. I'm glad you ran the test.


Given that you lifted the shadows, I think that can explain why they look brighter on the D750...there IS a lot more dynamic range to be had there. In my experience, lifting Canon shadows looks exactly like your Canon results, where as lifting A7r shadows look exactly like your D750 results.


I do think that showing the entire wedge, from the highlights to the shadows, both unprocessed as well as processed, and including the settings you used to process them, would help provide a more balanced review. It should head off the most predictable of human responses (which is quite prevalent on these forums) as well. ;P


Anyway, looking forward to seeing the full step wedge in both OOC and processed versions.

I see what you are saying here. Its black and white to me, but without showing what I am actually doing and how I am trying to get these 41 calibrated steps all in one shot, I can see how it would be confusing. Im out shooting now, Ill post something tonight to show how I am clipping off that first step in RAW, and then squeezing everything I can out of the shadows.

I know some people believe this is not useful or not a DR test, but I think the results are pretty obvious. If you have a better solution or idea, I would still love to hear it.

M

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 01, 2014, 08:09:45 PM »
A Maven is an both an expert in a particular field, AND someone who is willing to share his knowledge about that field, I first learned about it from the book "Tipping Point" by Malcolm Gladwell, and it has stuck for me.

I consider myself a student of all things who is willing to learn as much as possible and then share. Whether someone considers me an expert depends on their personal perspective. I teach beginning photography, so from the students perspective in terms of learning photography, I better be an expert...right?

M

29
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 01, 2014, 07:56:49 PM »
The 5Diii test is there as well, thats full frame to full frame.

Same strip, same exact settings on both cameras same everything. I have a hard time differentiating between stops 32/33 and higher on the Canons due to their noise. The D750 is much cleaner and easier to differentiate, more visible, distinct shades in deeper tones. Its clear to me. I try to frame up the strip edge to edge in both cameras. when I shoot it so yes the focal lengths are different. 

The strip is calibrated plus the strobe & tripod do not move, not sure how that would explain such different results between the two.

There was some exposure and shadow recovery on both, no noise reduction. Ill have to play with it more once the 7Dii files are supported by Camera RAW.

Canon DPP will only convert to tiff and JPEG files, unless I am mistaken.

Thank you for the feedback.

M

30
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 01, 2014, 06:13:04 PM »
Sorry about not explaining more carefully, good feedback.

Yes, essentially I am looking for the total DR I can squeeze out of a RAW file but recovering in the shadows, so both files have +2.6 Exposure (the point where the first swatch overexposes) and shadow recovery all the way. Part of the problem is I cannot import the 7Dii into Camera RAW and have to use RAW Therapee which I am totally unfamiliar with.

I believe it is Apples to Oranges in some regards because it is full frame vs crop (and photo site size seems to effect noise performance), but the reason I wanted to test is because they both have the most current sensors and processors from respective companies.

Im basically trying to get as many 1/3 stops of range captured with one end (the highlights) being clipped out. There is some room for recovery there, so its limiting my ability to find total DR, but all things being equal, it allows me to get something a little more illustrative than just recovering some shadows in an image.

Thank you for the suggestion to get out and shoot. My Dad just dropped off his Tamron 150-600, Im going to take it down the to beach! Im listening to all your feedback, so thank you for that as well.

M

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7