November 24, 2014, 09:20:01 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 - privatebydesign

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 185
32
Yes, as well as taking awesome images it can float.

It has to be the ultimate 1080HD time lapse camera out there too.......

33
I wish people would stop saying you can't use Canon TC's on the 70-300L, you can, though in limited form and if your body won't focus with f8 lenses you are screwed for AF. Canon specifically included the functionality in firmware updates for at least one camera, the 1DX, which can AF at f8.

It does give limited zoom range due to the protruding element on the TC but if you are putting a TC on then presumably you are focal length limited anyway.

34
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:46:08 AM »
I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.



There is always a first time.

Only if your 5D is different from all the other 5D's. Share a RAW file you are having issues with and I will prove you wrong.

35
Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Uneven Battery Usage in 580EXII
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:43:06 AM »
I have never had an issue like that with countless Canon flashes from 199A's and 533G's to 600's and battery packs. I did have draining issues with a Yongnuo YN-E3-RT, though not with their RF-602's.

I wouldn't worry about buying Canon flashes in the future, indeed I'd be more mindful about third party flashes battery use, though the truth is I wouldn't worry about them either, they are only batteries after all.

36
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 09:05:07 AM »
Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without  problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is  from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

I print big all the time, you are doing something wrong for there to be that kind of difference between the two.

In my experience DPP can be very slightly better than ACR on some files, but the difference is so small I practically never bother using it. For there to be such a noticeable difference, not just in the noise but in the contrast and detail as well, means there is something wrong.

I think the problem is that certain things happen to certain parameters of certain cameras. The criterion can not be applied to everything in ACR. It is logical because Canon do not want to release the official specification of the format, must be understood until about Adobe and others have gotten interpret or guess what is a CR2 without the collaboration of Canon.
The contrast and detail feeling in the tests is given by the grain noise generated by ACR.
I also have Raw Photo Processor 64 and Raw Therapee ( more complete than ACR ), but DPP is always better!

I disagree. I have never seen that much difference between two files without substantial differences in the various settings, sure you can make anything look as bad as that (in any program), but not without trying unless you have an issue.

I agree that DPP can be better, but not by such a large amount, there is some other issue or setting that is making the differences so dramatic.

37
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 01:54:38 AM »
Since I have a large format printer I've realized that raw processed with ACR are very noisy while the same raw processed with DPP can be enlarged without  problem.
I use DPP to make a TIFF, and then i open it in Ps.
The attached example is  from a test from a 90 x 135 cm print size left ACR right DPP.
The printer is an HP Z3200 camera EOS 5D
I decided to buy the printer when the lab said "12 mpx is not enough, you have to buy another camera".

I print big all the time, you are doing something wrong for there to be that kind of difference between the two.

In my experience DPP can be very slightly better than ACR on some files, but the difference is so small I practically never bother using it. For there to be such a noticeable difference, not just in the noise but in the contrast and detail as well, means there is something wrong.

38
It is by no means a crazy move, it looks like you have made a very thoughtful and logical choice.

However I could not give up the 70-200, I'd just wait until budget allows for the inclusion of the 100-400 MkII. In my experience once you sell a lens like that it starts to haunt you, but I can't fault your logic  :)

39
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 15, 2014, 10:38:38 PM »
"Is it possible the RAW converter is complicating things?"

Of course it is, but it could as easily be an intrinsic capture issue, but the point is moot, this isn't an isolated set of images and more than one RAW convertor does the same thing. Besides the output is purely academic until you put it through a RAW convertor, and the number of images most of us shoot means it needs to be one of a small handful of those.

Like I said, it isn't a huge issue for people with above average expectations and post processing skills.

40
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 15, 2014, 08:41:13 PM »
As far as I can tell, the white swatches in the NEF are just as redshifted as the black swatches. The overall red hue appears to be consistent to me, at least when the image is rendered in linear space. I can do a non-linear screen stretch, and the red hue disappears and the entire image becomes neutrally balanced.

If it was a simple colour shift or WB issue then the three lines in the channel curves adjustment would be straight, but they are not, they are curves. Being curves means the respective colour balance is uneven at different tonalities.

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 15, 2014, 05:24:51 PM »
Here a image taken from the raw data, at the right the canon 5 dmk3 and left the Nikon 750, stretch with ImagesPlus astronomical software, zero noise reduction. crop and arrows with photoshop.
Red arrows:  these are white specks on the card! not noise!
Blue arrow: banding in the Canon image.
Overall: in the Nikon image you see a red hue, but way less noise.
So what you think? especial the red hue, is the card realy red or black?
Garret van der Veen


I am pretty sure the red hue is just due to white balance. I do not believe that is the correct color, but it is easily correctable. The card and wedge should be neutral in color.

It is not as simple as the white balance, if it was all the whites would also be as red, and they are not, don't confuse the magenta fringing as red toned whites. If you look at a channel histogram you can see the red shift in the shadows and a slight lack of red in the highlights.

It is due to changes in the response curve at different tones which could be caused by any number of fundamental things, the only way to sort it out is to apply a channel tone curve, probably several with luminosity masks, to overcome the precise shifts.

The first histogram is the untouched file, the second is the three point three channel corrected file, I have included the tone curve adjustment lines too. Although the resulting lines look linear they are not. And, of course, any adjustments you make to the actual shadows would need a similarly adjusted curves layer.

None of this is that difficult, but the time and skill involved is not as trivial as many would lead you to believe good processing of Exmor files is.

42
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:45:36 PM »
Marsu, that is what happens in the blacks when you lift the shadows like that on Nikon files.

Interesting, I never shot Nikon. Why does the red tint creep in when raising shadows? And why don't they get rid of this effect - is it a basic difference between cr2 and nef files, or the sensors, or... ?

I don't know, but the colour fidelity and tonality degradation is dramatic. Whilst there is no doubt that the Exmor files can be lifted much more than Canon files it certainly isn't a free lunch and the actual quality of the information down in those dark shadows is limited. I have said many times, and I have printed a lot of Nikon files, when the lifted areas take up more than a small area of the image the file ends up looking very flat, the tonality just isn't there and that is because of the gamma curves that are already applied to the RAW information, to then apply another gamma shaped curve on top of that stretches the few tones to nothing.

43
Lenses / Re: EF 35mm f/1.4L II to Finally Come as Well? [CR2]
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:33:39 PM »

  • Video on SLRs was in its infancy 5 years ago, but now...  Any chance they'd put IS on this?  Surely they'd keep USM over STM, right?
  • Will they go with the 'nice' engineering plastic of the 100L, 16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS to keep the weight down, or will they stick with the tank-like build they put in the 24L II?
  • Is 82mm the new filter diameter for all the higher end L lenses, now that the 24-70 II has that size?  It may not need to be for aperture reasons, but if the pros already have 82s in their bag, why not grab as much light as possible?
  • Any chance Canon would try to pull a rabbit out of the hat to make a distinction between this new lens and the Art lens?  Is an f/1.2 lens possible at this FL?

- A

  • None, not with the very well rated and liked 35mm f2 IS already out there.
  • Probably engineering plastic, it works better, is more durable, lighter, easier to work etc etc. The 100 L is a fine lens, the 17 TS-E a recommissioned tank.
  • There was always a prime and f2.8 zoom filter distinction (until the 82mm 16-35 MkII?), 72mm and 77mm, that the zooms have gone bigger doesn't necessitate the primes following
  • No, none, it is possible but there is little reason and probably an even smaller market, besides, it would make it yet bigger and heavier and that seems to be against the current ideology, as does additional speed

44
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 7Dii vs Nikon D750 Dynamic Range Test
« on: November 15, 2014, 12:21:48 PM »
So what you think? especial the red hue, is the card realy red or black?

Did the Nikon raw processing have correct white balance? If not, there is always the option of shooting a color+wb card to calibrate - but you cannot wiz away banding that easily.

Note: Let's not forget we're we're comparing sensors that are 2.5 years apart, for the banding the newer 6d would have been a much better choice.

Marsu, that is what happens in the blacks when you lift the shadows like that on Nikon files. Having said that it is easy to remove, just do a curves adjustment layer and set the black point, this will give you the option to make different curves on the R, G and B channels to allow for the shadow hues, if you were working an important file you could use a luminosity mask on the curves to only alter specific dark tones very accurately.

Of course if you are going to those lengths then finagling the Canon file noise/detail equation is just as easy.

45
EOS Bodies / Re: I killed my brand new 7D MK2 today
« on: November 14, 2014, 05:21:57 PM »
The only other slot I can think of which is designed for inserting the long side is a toaster. The toaster is probably the most dangerous household item ever invented. If you invented and tried to market the toaster today they would probably hold you over for psychiatric evaluation. Just sayin ;)

Kinda pathetic really, people are so dumb we have to worry about them using a toaster, I give up................

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 185