October 21, 2014, 11:23:53 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 - 3kramd5

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 30
121
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 04:29:46 PM »
So, on the topic of DXO and their trustworthiness, since ZigZag decided to recreate his account and ruffle feathers again. I often use SensorGen.info, which uses DXO's raw data to provide unbiased statistics of cameras. I found this to be interesting:

http://sensorgen.info/NikonD800.html
http://sensorgen.info/NikonD810.html

D800 @ ISO 100:
QE: 56%

D810 @ ISO 64:
QE: 50%


Quantum efficiency got 10% worse with the new sensor? Or does sensitivity affect QE (hence losing 6 percentage points with the lower native sensitivity)?

122
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:40:30 PM »
People want WiFi in their cameras more than they do IQ.

WiFi seems like overkill to me, and requires additional hardware. I believe a firmware update could facilitate USB host mode, and some simple menus would then allow copying directly from camera to portable hard drives. For my purposes, that would be far preferable to WiFi.

But didn't you say something like 'Nikon smashes anything Canon has to offer'?

That thread got dumb when using sensitivity to achieve photos in significantly light-limited environments was portrayed as a sign of incompetence.

123
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 07, 2014, 10:50:03 AM »
So what if they do? It's very hard to imagine them doing anything to beat the D810 when it comes to IQ, so if they do catch up, it will just be a level playing field.


You don't suspect that, if they were to release a camera (let's just pretend since it's unlikely Canon would deviate from their vertical integration business model) using the same sensor and signal pipeline, Canon's lens selection would tilt the playing field in their favor from an IQ standpoint?

DR would be roughly equivalent, but the canon system would likely resolve more detail given that the 5D3+lenses already outresolves the D800+lenses on average.

Quote
When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon.

When using specific lenses (such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A) the Nikon can out resolve the Canon. However, taken as a whole, the statistics reveal the EOS 5D MK III is capable of similar sharpness and of achieving a close DxOMark camera/lens score to the Nikon D800. Moreover, that’s despite the latter camera’s 60% extra pixel count.

124
Gear nerds will wish for better IQ and DR.  Casual users won'[t], and that is the vast majority of the entry level market.

I must not be alone in having heard many times (not necessarily about my work): wow, nice photo, you must have a nice camera.

To most people who don't pursue photography, there is an expected link between quality of gear and quality of result. Of course there is a value decision, but casual buyers don't want low-quality images, and many are willing to pay higher prices on the assumption that doing so will improve their results.

125
That would make for a 66MP sensor. Does any of Canon's lenses have the resolving power to match that?

I doubt it, but it's impossible to know.

Given that the 5D3 resolves more (on average) across the lens lineup than does the D800 across its lens lineup, I think it's likely that for Canon, the sensor is the limiting factor in total system resolution at the moment. By how much? Anybody's guess. Chances are they'll release a higher resolution sensor sometime soon. Regardless, more resolution in any one area improves total system resolution (with diminishing returns).

And finally: I was joking. They could, but they obviously won't.

Btw, I'm not ragging on macs - they just happen to be the easiest computers to work on.

I've been using OSX for several years now, and I still don't have it figured out. Windows is far more intuitive to me. Shrug.

126
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:32:04 PM »

No one has ever claimed this. The pixels themselves will have greater dynamic range when properly downsampled however. I fail to see why DxO is not relevant in the real world, it is not like pixel DR downscaled to a certain mpix count or DR at native resolution are independent values as I have tried to explain above.  How should DR be compared then, at native resolution and just disregard the fact that a high megapixel sensor captures more information than a low megapixel sensor? That sounds more like BS to me.

It is far to use resampled data to compare cameras. Using it to specify individual camera capabilities, however? Not so much. That's why DxO provides Screen DR as well as the resampled Print DR.

127
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 05, 2014, 10:15:07 AM »
If I lived on the West Coast nothing would bring me East to dive, not the Caribbean, not the Red Sea, nothing, it would have to be your local cold water, though I am not a cold water diver, and all the Pacific opportunities going round to Indonesia.

I've done most of my diving locally. The kelp forests are pretty, but I'm mostly a wreck diver, and the Los Angeles area is littered with them. Since becoming a father I've had to stop the deep (helium costs have gotten out of hand - breathing gas and diesel for a two dives on a wreck like the Sacramento will cost as much as trip to Cozumel) dives, which means the really cool wrecks are out of my reach these days.

The red sea looks amazing (again, I count wrecks as my passion), but Chuuk is better. My bucket list includes Bikini, but that's $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

128
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:46:43 AM »
The whole point here being it is completely disingenuous to claim that more stops of DR are wasted because they can't be used on the screen or on paper.

I've seen him say on numerous occasions that he'd like more dynamic range, and that he appreciates exmor technology. I think pretty much everyone does. Here's an example:

Well, for landscapes, I really want that extra resolution. A low resolution of 12mp really doesn't interest me much, and I was hoping the 5D III would land with 28-32mp. The D800E with 36.3mp and its incredible DR is about as close to the holy grail of landscape photography as I think it can get these days. I'd much prefer if Canon could reciprocate with their own megapixel/DR monster, though.

And another:

This kind of night photography is another area where more DR is certainly an enviable trait to have. Your the type who could probably benefit from a full 16 stops of DR with a true 16-bit sensor, even.



There have been times when he's impeached the notion of using DXO's "print DR" values to quote camera specifications, maybe that's what you're referring to?

More DR is better (up to the point that the camera DR exceeds the scene DR, which many of us use lighting, ND filters, etc to achieve), just as more resolution is better. Even if it doesn't make its way to the final format, it gives latitude to workflow.

If he doesn't need more than 8 stops of DR in his printouts then he should quit working with raw and TIFF files and just use JPEGs.

You don't honestly think that bit-depth is the only advantage to RAW, do you?

129
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 05, 2014, 12:26:48 AM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

That looks like Sombrero, and nobody goes to Sombrero! Maybe another Caribbean Atlantic coast?

North east Curacao

Right angle, but not really an Atlantic coast! Never got to the ABC's, only to Trinidad and Tobago and St Vincent and the Grenadines that far South.


Impressive call nonetheless.

I've not been to A nor B, but can't recommend C unless you're a diver. The water is phenomenal, but the land is arid (except the north east), desolate, and littered with half-completed structures. It may be worth going to if it's not a pain, but I am from California and I won't be back unless with dive buddies.
















130
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:49:36 PM »
Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR

How do you add noise on a per pixel basis?

I just add noise using Photoshop's "Add Noise" filter. That adds noise with a pixel-level frequency...or, in other words, per-pixel noise. It's a VERY minimal amount, you have to squint to see it, as it really isn't supposed to be obvious, and as such, is effectively meaningless in the midtones through highlights/whites.

The general point of this is to smooth out the harsh transitions that usually occur in the shadows due to low bit depth and quantization error during ADC. If you examine lifted shadows, from any camera (including, and maybe even particularly, a D800 or other camera with a Sony Exmor), you will very often notice a bit of posterization. Adding a very light amount of noise breaks that up, which helps improve gradient transitions and such in the shadows. It can also help artificially enhance detail that may otherwise look like smooth blobs due to noise reduction algorithms (this can especially be a problem if you did any noise reduction with masking, so you could apply NR more heavily in the shadows than in the midtones and highlights).

Gotcha, I just wondered if you had something more sophisticated. I suppose it's not really noise insofar as it isn't random, but close enough I guess? Interesting idea.

131
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:45:54 PM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

That looks like Sombrero, and nobody goes to Sombrero! Maybe another Caribbean Atlantic coast?

North east Curacao

132
Landscape / Re: give us a wave
« on: August 04, 2014, 11:20:24 PM »
Not water I'd care to find myself in...

133
Reviews / Re: DxO reviews Sony A7s: king of low light photography?
« on: August 04, 2014, 10:51:19 PM »
Possibly add in a very fine amount of per-pixel noise to improve DR

How do you add noise on a per pixel basis?

And you do all this on windows or osx?

My workflow isn't nearly as exacting as his. I process in LR, export as tiff, open (prophoto) in photoshop, downsample (i can not print larger than Super B), apply a paper- and ink- appropriate profile (I use a colormunki to calibrate across a wide range of photos), softproof and print. If I'm using fancy paper (which for me usually means inkpress metallic gloss), I'll do a small test print before committing. I do it in Windows. I have tried on my OSX machine, but it doesn't play well with my epson 1400 drivers (surprisingly).

134
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 06:06:16 PM »
I'm not sure, though, what the point is you're trying to make with your invocation of slippery slopes.

Basically the point at which one concludes that sensor size is irrelevant because incremental steps down in size are regarded as irrelevant. But I fully admit that my commentary is worth less than the amount you paid to read it :P

135
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Fun Arias rant on APS-C vs. FF
« on: July 31, 2014, 03:36:47 PM »
The "this format is almost as good as that one" slope is a slippery one. FF is what, 2.6 times the light gathering area af a (canon) APS-C? Well if the FF is barely better than APS-C with that size advantage, then surely APS-C has an even smaller performance advantage over M4/3 being only 1.4 times larger. And so on and so forth until cellphone sensors are perfect adequate for all purposes.

I think you'll find that most reviewers and users are of the opinion that the difference in image quality between m43 and APS-C is very small indeed except at higher ISOs.

Sure, but where does the "very small" end? If the difference between FF and APS-C is very small, and the difference between APS-C and m4/3 is very small, and the difference between m4/3 and 1" is small, is the difference between FF and 1" some degree of small?

Maybe it is, but without quantifying what "small" is, it's a bit of a useless comparison, and in a world where people report for example dynamic range in tenth-stop precision, maybe small from the general lexicon doesn't apply.

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 30