October 31, 2014, 06:44:21 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 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 174
376
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 06:06:29 PM »
There are more reasons to want a sensor with higher DR, for landscapes and for other things. Here is one of my shots from yesterday:
I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either.

Blend two of the frames with a layer mask and "paint" in either the sky or the shadows (depending on which frame you want to be the primary.)

Sure, that's an option. You guys are STILL missing the point. Manually blending with layer masks and whatnot is STILL MORE WORK. When you fill GIGS of CF cards every time you go out, having to do all that for even half the images is too much work. That's the entire point here. Yeah, there are options...but they all involve more work. The benefit of increased editing latitude is it reduces the workload.
Whilst I take your point that more work is more work and if a different piece of gear can save you that why not use it, or at least covert it , anybody shooting gigs and gigs of images every time they go out really isn't shooting with the highest IQ forefront in their mind.

But anyway, whilst I am no Canon apologist here is an example, not dissimilar to yours (without the water) where a GND would not have been any help, but I am pragmatic enough to accept that an extra two stops of sensor DR would not have helped much as the shadows still wouldn't have held detail and I want the contrast anyway, I hate the flat HDR look your sunflowers had. It took 15 seconds to make the second one from the first one. I took a further two minutes to make it look OK!

377
Software & Accessories / Re: Canon brand UV and Circ. Polarizing filters
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:18:11 PM »
I can't find a lot of information online about these so far.  I'm looking to get 2 77mm UV filters to protect my lenses and one circular polarizer.

The Canon brand filters are more expensive than the other filters I see in my catalogs.

Are they worth it?

No.

I had to buy a Canon CPL once and it was the biggest POS I ever got, it delaminated in a matter of weeks and scratched very easily. Do not buy them.
Pretty sad that Canon makes such garbage considering what great optics they make.  Maybe they should come out with an "L" line of filters ;)

I don't think Canon do make them, they might be made for them, but not by them.

378
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 05:16:24 PM »

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

Yes, I did.  You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

The tripod/handheld argument is a bit of a red herring. How good is the tripod? how well does it control vibrations? And shooting without a tripod depends a lot on the person, how stable their stance is, and are they leaning up against a tree/rock/building/??? for extra stability. I can hand-hold steadier than the typical tripod, but a good tripod is steadier than me.....

and yes, I can shoot the moon at 600mm, handheld, with nothing to lean against and still get a sharp picture...

The point is, that "handheld" is a nebulous standard that can never be defined, so therefore it can never be a controlled variable in tests...

Fair point Don, but mine is that you can't handhold without some impact in resolution and that impact, even though it is to both systems, will make any small resolution differences even smaller.

also a fair point.....

May I suggest that we let this discussion drop for a while and over the weekend go take some pictures of the moon and carry this on in a new thread?

I propose that those interested get their hands on a FF camera and a crop camera of approximately the same vintage.. (6D and 70D would make a good pair, 5D2 and 7D/60D would make a good pair) and go out and take some moon pictures with the same lens/ISO/aperture/shutter speed and scale them up to the same size... Get 4 pictures and post the results... FF tripod, FF handheld, crop on tripod, and crop on handheld.... and for entertainment's sake, add in any other camera you wish to try.....


Great idea, though I'd suggest anything but the moon unless your main normal focal length limited subject is the moon. I was thinking soft toys or birds feathers.


379
I'm sure this thread is full of bad information all around, and I'm not even going to read the previous posts.
If you want to know how to convert back and forth here are the facts.

FF is 2.56X larger than APSC (1.6X crop factor - 1.6 * 1.6 = 2.56)
If you have an APSC Body with a given lens, and want to obtain the same framing, depth of field, and ISO noise on a FF use the following math:
Crop to Full Frame:
Length * 1.6
Aperature * 1.6
ISO * 2.56

i.e. a
100mm f/2.8 lens @ ISO 400 on a Crop body camera will take the same picture as
160mm f/4.48 lens @ ISO 1024 on a Full Frame body.

To convert the other way, the math is:
Length / 1.6
Aperature / 1.6
ISO / 2.56

i.e. a Full Frame with an 85mm f/1.8 lens shooting at ISO 320 =
a Crop body 53mm f/1.1 lens shooting at ISO 125

As far as cropping a Full frame image down to an APSC size, the pixels on target are FF MP divided by 2.56
i.e. 22MP / 2.56 = roughly 8.6MP on target.

If your lens has the resolving power to see the added resolution, then there ya go, use a crop body for extra reach.

Well maybe you should have read some of it Andy, if you had you would have realised we are not talking about equivalence, which you have outlined reasonable well. We are talking about comparable resolution capabilities, the bit you sum up as "If your lens has the resolving power to see the added resolution", that is the bit we are talking about.

380
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:55:24 PM »

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

Yes, I did.  You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

The tripod/handheld argument is a bit of a red herring. How good is the tripod? how well does it control vibrations? And shooting without a tripod depends a lot on the person, how stable their stance is, and are they leaning up against a tree/rock/building/??? for extra stability. I can hand-hold steadier than the typical tripod, but a good tripod is steadier than me.....

and yes, I can shoot the moon at 600mm, handheld, with nothing to lean against and still get a sharp picture...

The point is, that "handheld" is a nebulous standard that can never be defined, so therefore it can never be a controlled variable in tests...

Fair point Don, but mine is that you can't handhold without some impact in resolution and that impact, even though it is to both systems, will make any small resolution differences even smaller.

381
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:39:14 PM »

Yes, I did.  You just didn't like it because it was shot on a tripod.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII.  Both were handheld, both were with AF.

Lee Jay,

This is my last comment to you unless you can actually supply the images you said you could.


You have now said the same images were shot both on a tripod, and handheld, you have no credibility.

382
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:35:07 PM »

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.
by insisting on a hand-held comparison, is your point essentially that when shooting hand-held, nobody can hold steady enough for an APS-C camera to show its resolution advantage over a FF and that therefore, the higher resolution is useless anyway in those (=most) situations?

My request for a resolution comparison done as most people use theirs cameras will demonstrate that we do not, 99% of the time, realise the resolution the sensors are capable of in ideal bench test type scenarios.

383
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:30:53 PM »
There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

Your test isn't a test, it's a random number generator.  I provided controlled tests that demonstrated the point.

Let's say the two lenses are identical in optical performance (perfect).  Will a 500/6.3 out-resolve a 300/4 under your conditions?

If they are both "perfect" they will both resolve infinitely.

Stop trying to break down a simple system test to a series of theoretical concepts you think you can prove, system tests don't work like that and you can't supply "evidence" to support your position.

384
It is a great shame you chose 1.6 as your example number there Alan, it will confuse people all the more as it is the "crop factor".

You point out that the difference in resolution is between 1.19 and 1, depending on the sensors being compared, that is the point, the best you can hope for with a crop camera is between nothing and 19% more "reach", not the 60% that last comment implies.

385
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:16:04 PM »

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think a 500mm lens will out-resolve a 300mm lens, at the same aperture?

Even though you haven't answered mine? Sure.

There are many 300mm lenses that are more than capable of out resolving many 500mm lenses, the reverse is true too. That is where specifics of a question become important, and my question was very specific, that you either misread it or intentionally ignored it is irrelevant, despite your assertions that "every test ever" illustrates my lack of a point, you can't actually point to one that does, including your own.

386
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:42:33 PM »

You are asking for a highly subjective comparison.......

The hand-holdability requirement is a purposeful handicap here...

We've debated this topic over and over. You have shared your comparison of the 1Ds III and 7D a few times, and every time you do, I see a sharpness and resolution edge to the 7D that you insist doesn't exist at all......

No, I am just asking for results from real world actual shooting, because we cannot ever achieve the results we see from test bench samples.

Again, no, the handholding is important as most people do handhold most of the time. It might be difficult, but it is very relevant.

I have never, ever said it doesn't exist, in my samples I have said it does exist in artificial test type scenarios, however in real worlkd shooting other factors like AF, handholding, non optimal iso, aperture, shutterspeed, contrast levels etc etc make a bigger difference than the small differences between test bench results.

That is considerably more nuanced than your "you insist doesn't exist at all".

387
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 03:34:28 PM »
I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF.

The 20D pixels are the same size as those in the 5DII.  Both were handheld, both were with AF.

So pixel size is the only factor here? Nothing to do with AA filters, age of design, etc etc etc.

If you are using fooling AF on a multi TC setup at night at a minimum of f11 then that, again, is not the test I am asking for, that is not how most people use their lenses most of the time.

If you can't come up with the specific images I asked for, even though you said you had "many" and "every test ever" demonstrated it, then there is no point in us going through this.

The stuff you are showing is 100% irrelevant to the challenge to "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." To do that you need a 7D/70D and a 5D MkII/5D MkIII/1Ds MkIII/1Dx/6D, and a lens. If you don't have those then you cannot do what I ask.

388
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 02:21:06 PM »

Do you see a detail difference between these two?  They were shot with the same aperture diameter.


What did you shoot the second image with... and what settings?

First image is with a 20D @ 280mm, f/6.3, 1/200s, ISO400
Second image is with a T2i @ 560mm, f/11, 1/20s, ISO200

I wouldn't count on the EXIF data as the teleconverter stacks were different and only the first one reports.

I don't understand what you think you are demonstrating here. Neither is with a FF camera, neither is handheld, and neither is with AF. With regards the question of comparing a crop capture to a FF one cropped whilst using AF and handholding I can't think of a more irrelevant post. Well done.

389
EOS Bodies / Re: Do Sensors Make the Camera?
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:39:20 PM »


I've got bracketed shots for this, but I doubt I'll actually use them, as in some the water is frozen, and in others the water motion is blurred. The V-shaped patch of sky at the end of the river is an example of where no kind of filtration will solve the problem either. Having more sensor DR, however, would have...given how much the highlights clipped, I'd say two extra stops would have been perfect to get this entire scene, from the clouds right down to the deeper shadows under the trees, all in a single shot. Here is another example of a scene where GND filtration just doesn't really help:


You can easily use PS HDR for moving water, just choose which image you want to use as the key frame, check the Remove Ghosts option and you are done. I just did a series of a fountain and even CS6 is freaky good at water.

Also, your V shaped sky is why I have never been a graduated ND filter fan, there is almost always something on the line that makes it not work, but, Background Erase tool is designed for this scenario, it takes seconds to effortlessly layer out your sky to a different exposure.

Not arguing against newer tech or suggesting what we have is enough, just pointing out that you are mistaken in your blending and post processing beliefs. Things have moved on a lot in the last few years and you clearly don't blend/HDR a lot.

390
Nancy, nobody does.

And focal length limited doesn't mean there isn't a lens available, it just means you don't have it to use, it doesn't matter if you don't own it or you don't have it with you.

I rarely take longer than a 70-200 with me unless I know I will need it, but that 200 is my limit whether I have a 7D or a 5D MkIII. AlanF has given us a sound mathematical explanation as to why the pixel numbers don't add up to the resolution differences we see.

My take was back in the 7D and 5D MkII days when people owned both because they thought the 7D gave them a lot more resolution over a cropped 5D MkII, but it doesn't, it does give them better AF and frame rate, but not a noticeable increase in resolution from real world shooting. My suggestion at that time to people wanting a 5D MkII and a 7D was to not get either but get a 1Ds MkIII instead, it covered both cameras stills capabilities for around the same money. AlanF has just presented us with a real equation as to why the "pixels on duck" meme was a complete fallacy.

Pages: 1 ... 24 25 [26] 27 28 ... 174