September 02, 2014, 06:08:28 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 152
16
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 08:23:26 PM »
So in closing, I'd like you to answer a question.  What is the reason for wanting these shots handheld?  What advantage do you believe lies in such a poor testing methodology?

I believe there is a fundamental disconnect between what people are told they will be able to achieve, and what they actually will achieve in day to day use. I think tech heads argue about every single electron a pixel is capable of recording and that is so far removed from the practical aspects of how we use our cameras that much of the raw data we get from tests, analysis, over thinking and opinions is not only not helpful, it has now become counter productive.

We, here, are generally enthusiasts, but it is frightening how so many of even us have no core understanding of photography basics and have swallowed hook line and sinker every morsel of garbage that comes out of our personal favourite posters mouth wrapped in some equation and well balanced argument that seems to make sense.

The reason for my challenge is to illustrate how far removed from actual day to day camera use these bench tests are. I don't want or need to post the results, whatever I post will be argued over as irrelevant or flawed anyway, even if it is how I would actually use both cameras! I already did the tests for myself years ago, I want everybody who can to borrow a camera to do the tests for themselves to see how much difference it makes to not use perfect technique, because that is the shooting situation most of us find ourselves in most of the time.

I have a very heavy tripod, it leaves the studio about six times a year, how many wildlife and landscape photographers shoot at midday when they have the "best" light and contrast, how many bird shooters do BIF with a tripod, how many of us use manual focus all the time, or a remote release, ever take your camera off base iso, shoot outside your lenses optimal aperture, use IS, push shutter speed, fail to optimally expose?

All these factors will impact IQ, often good IS will give you sharper images than more pixels, who ever says that? How important is information like that to an enthusiast who is just looking to get help on a purchase? Many of us have the knowledge to truly help those people, but our hands on experience s constantly questioned and belittled by people with more time, typing skills, and equations.

A 7D and 300 f4 might resolve more detail than their cropped 5D MkIII on a test bench, for years people were saying you'd get 60% more "reach", now the consensus is down to a more reasonable 20% (which IMHO is still way too high), but what will you actually achieve when you are trying to take pictures of your kid playing soccer? I would argue that rather than advise the person to buy a crop camera for the "additional reach" they would actually get very similar results by simply cropping, after all nobody on soccer sidelines is shooting with "perfect technique", or don't get the 7D, get a 1.4 TC or the 400 f5.6, but no, for years the 1.6 "crop factor", that magical "60% more reach" meme has ruled the roost.

That is the point of the "challenge" to separate fact, actual results, from the fiction we are too often sold.


17
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 05:20:31 PM »
No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

I don't care about your request (which changes every time), I care about a controlled test demonstrating the point.  And I provided that.

Well you did care enough to argue the point, and you failed.

My request hasn't changed, I just broadened it to include more cameras to make it easier. Here is the original request:

Quote
Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage.

If by showing tripod mounted shots from a 20D and a 5D you think you have demonstrated the 7D's resolution advantage when hand held you have a different understanding of Engish than I do, or, to quote you, "Idiot".

Here is the link and the quote in context.

Quote
date=1409191281]
Definitely an indication of pent-up demand..... I wonder how many will purchase one?

Not me, I never had any interest in the 7D after basic testing showed it was no better than my current FF cropped.

If you aren't getting more real resolution with a 7D than with a Canon full-frame, then you have problems elsewhere - lenses, focus, motion blur, etc.

If you are getting visibly more resolution from your 7D than a FF cropped then you are not using 1 series AF, 300 f2.8 IS's etc, you are also only using your crop camera on a tripod with live view MF in good light with nice contrast and at base iso at an optimal aperture. Anything less and the differences are just not there, I looked for them, hard, years ago.

No? What about only every test out there?

7D has quite noticeably more reach than a 5D3 or 5D2. And I say that as someone who sold my 7D so I'm not some 7D owner making up justifications.

Show me one test done with the same lenses from the same place shooting the same subject handheld whilst using AF that demonstrates the 7D's resolution advantage. Don't worry about off base iso, optimal aperture etc, just handheld with AF, because that is how most people use their cameras.

18
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 04:25:39 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things.  I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO.  Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions.

Yes, I did.  Since you're memory seems to be failing you, here it is:



And, if you prefer to see them at native (but different) sizes, here's that one too:


No you didn't, the request was for comparisons between a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/6D/1DX handheld with AF.

So apart from neither camera being in the list and it being tripod mounted you nailed it.

19
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:54:31 PM »
Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff?

You say a lot of dumb things.  I have over 50,000 shots on my 5D, which I purchased at release.

I have talked with owners that love their 400/4DO.  Not so much the 70-300.

And you are my equal.

For all your 10,000's of shots you still couldn't post two images to illustrate your belief and assertions. Oh that is because we weren't talking about the 5D, you are the one that tried to prove something without actually having any examples of it and yet I am the one you say says dumb things, you da man.

So you have talked to a couple of owners, that is convincing, I am looking at what owners are prepared to lose to get rid of them, I believe mine is a bigger sample and a more accurate indicator of lens performance.

20
Lenses / Re: Your favorite older EF lens
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:38:53 PM »
50 f1.4 and 15 f2.8 fisheye.

21
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:37:07 PM »
But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "   ;)

The last person who told me I was egotistical was a much younger woman I was in bed with  :(

I thought jrista* was a guy!  ;D

*Apologies in advance if it wasn't jrista that made the comment.

22
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:34:32 PM »
I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction.  This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements.  For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent.  Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements.  Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

And yet, many owners just love them.

Well do you have proof of that or is it just another guess like your ff comparison without actually using a ff? The 400 DO is probably the Canon lens that suffers the most depreciation of any lens (a good indicator of owner satisfaction, how much they are prepared to lose to get rid of it), it must be the only big white ever made that you can lose 50% on within a year, my 10 year old 300 f2.8 IS would sell for what I paid for it, and I could get more for it than a 12 month old 400 DO.

23
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:09:38 PM »
art is the product of the artist and their tools

How would you know that, did you read it?

24
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 03:07:07 PM »
I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

Diffractive optical elements do bend light, and they do it using a different approach than refraction.  This comes with a couple of major advantages compared with conventional refractive elements.  For one, the refractive index of the glass isn't the limitation on how much the light can be bent.  Secondly, the DO elements produce CA in the opposite direction as conventional elements thus making it greatly easier to correct CA with down-stream elements.  Both of these lead to smaller lenses that do the same job as conventional refractive lenses.

Here, read up:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/standard_display/Lens_Advantage_Perf#f

I know and understand exactly how DO works, my point was they need to have come up with yet another way of bending light (hence the use of those words) to get over the intrinsic issues the DO introduces, despite the advantages, the disadvantages have proven to make the idea incompatible with consistent high quality photographic output.

I used two DO lenses for a day and instantly realised they were not good.

25
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:26:32 PM »

+1,

I said more or less the same thing but in an arse-about-face way on another thread and was told by a regular member that I was being 'elitist', 'egotistical', and wanting to keep quality photography 'out of the reach of novices'.

With proper technique there is virtually nothing that can't be done with the current sensors. The 'low ISO read noise' of the current sensors is irrelevant to the vast majority of users, from those who just don't know and don't care to those skilled, who's techniques result in the same view.

The fact is that is you stretch the latitude of the sensor, even if you don't get excessive noise, you still get a flat, desaturated result that is wholly inferior to the results from a camera ten years ago where sound technique has been applied. So in other words some people are howling for an advancement in technology that will still produce an inferior result when compared with doing the job properly on much older tech.

Do I want to see sensors where you can lift data by four stops and produce a result that is indistinguishable from data that has been recorded with the correct exposure ? No I don't.

Despite all the remarkable advances that digital has made to photography at the present time skilled traditional photographic technique is still required to produce the best technical quality result. Even a five stop bracket on sunflowers shows how you can still get it wrong. But with the current rate of advance I don't see that lasting for ever.

But Sporgon, that is because you are " 'elitist', 'egotistical'," and you do want to keep quality photography "'out of the reach of novices'. "   ;)

26
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:20:41 PM »

I'm sorry I didn't realize you worked on canon's lens design teams and know even before the lens is released that it isn't ready for prime time.

the usual L refresh rate was always around a decade - 13 years while a bit long, isn't extraordinarily long.

and I'm sure canon knows how many will buy it and the margins far more than you or I.

I don't, but I have put up with Canon's loss leading tech pet projects for a long long time, and DO is one.

It is a fair assumption that it isn't ready for prime time because of what it is and why it does wrong what it does wrong. With current tech the only way to negate the impact of putting steps into a perfectly smooth surface is to counteract it in software.

Now if Canon have invented a different way to bend light at the very least I would expect them to call it a new technology, for goodness sake they can paint a Rebel red and call it new, something like Diffractive And Micro Nano Glass Observational Optical Detail. We live in hope.

27
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 02:11:25 PM »
It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time?  It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready  for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.



"...DO is DOA"

How do you actually know that!!

If Canon do bring about an improved 400DO it maybe a signal that they have reached the end of the line with weight reductions on the big whites with current designs.
I am sure there would be a big market for a sharp 3kg 500/4DO or a 2kg 300/2.8DO.

I don't, but I'd bet a lot of money on the fact that it hasn't overcome the biggest hurdle it makes for itself. The issue is intrinsic to the design, I believe the only way around it is to do something in post to work around it.

Now if it is released I am sure we will have a lot of testers and early adopters say it is the greatest lens ever, I then suspect that a year or so latter they will be on eBay.

28
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:26:28 PM »

Again, I get that for certain kinds of photography shadows are the enemy.  But not all kinds...

Isn't it Joe McNally that says "it isn't about the light, it is about the shadows"?

A picture with no shadows is, after all, a blank screen...........

29
EOS Bodies / Re: The Perfect Sensor
« on: August 29, 2014, 01:21:06 PM »
Because photos would look just like real life and be limited only by our own eyes. 

No they wouldn't, they would look like the recent field of sunflowers that has been posted a lot here recently.

Ansel Adams made some of the most captivating and atmospheric studies of the American scenery ever with 11 stops of recordable DR (but boy he took his understanding of those 11 stops to a level few here can appreciate), people like Galen Rowell did the same thing around the world in colour with little more than 6 stops of DR. Sensor performance, even though it is the new kicking bag, equals or surpasses even negative film for DR, iso and resolution. DR is as much a red herring as megapixels were once we arrived at levels that vastly outstripped most of our needs.

Sure there are areas where performance increases can be made, and they will be, but throwing our toys out of the pram at every opportunity because we only see limitations rather than possibilities is pathetic, a true first world "problem". We have "more" than anybody else ever has in the history of photography, yet here all many seem to do is bitch it isn't enough.

I am a working pro, my output from seven year old cameras is the best I have ever made in 35 years of doing this.

30
Lenses / Re: New Lens Information for Photokina
« on: August 29, 2014, 12:20:13 PM »
It's been 13 years, do you have any evidence to say DO isn't ready for prime time?  It'll take a lens release to show it...

Canon have stuck with DO because they want to, they want to make that square peg fit in out round lenses, and they will spend countless man hours on keeping it going for no other reason than they want to and they patented the heck out of it so they can. Sure in ten years (weren't we saying that thirteen years ago when the 400 came out) when DPP can "adjust" for the aberrations in post it might work, but seriously, who cares? When DO is ready  for prime time then bring it to market, I am all for it, in the mean time keep the people who pay the bills happy (us customers) with lenses we want, we need, and we can afford.

I think it is a pretty safe bet that it won't be dramatically different, why? Well the issues it has are at the core of what it is, so it will take a completely different approach, not a Canon strong point, to overcome it, or a different technology like re sampling or a different demosaic algorithm to work around. Something like AA filters and moire, we know what causes it, we know how to have sensors that don't have AA filters and don't cause moire, but we are just not there for a few generations yet.

At this point in time and tech DO is DOA.

Besides I don't want Canon focusing on a lens they make a loss on, and there is no way they have ever made a cent from any DO lens, I want them to make lenses they make profits on then they will have more R&D money and will make even better stuff.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 152