September 02, 2014, 06:10:30 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 6 ... 152
46
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.

47
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.

48
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.

49
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.

50
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".

51
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.

52
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.

53
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.

54
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.

55
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:51:52 AM »
I have many, actually, it's just that they were controlled tests, rather than uncontrolled tests.  You see, to science folks like myself, uncontrolled tests are useless.
So lets see some your many "controlled tests"...

Same focal length, f-stop, ISO, shutter speed, shooting position, subject, lighting, and processing.

Smaller pixels on top:


Smaller pixels on the left:


They are not controlled tests of the metrics I asked for, are they? I said hand held and with AF, show me some controlled tests that demonstrate a clear advantage in resolution to the 7D against a 5D MkII or MkIII cropped that used AF and was hand held.

56
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 08:48:54 AM »

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.

To get the results you want you have to approach the issue in about the most ham-fisted way possible. That's not evaluating the gear, but manhandling it - not exactly the best way to find out if one could get better results using proper, or at least reasonable, technique.

Sure, you could use a filter made from ground glass and declare that as standard to proof that a smaller pixel pitch makes no sense...but anyone interested in results will take it off and invalidate your conclusion.

If you believe that you can't understand what I am saying. All I am asking for is actual real world comparisons using cameras as we actually do, handheld with AF, that demonstrate a "crazy clear" resolution advantage to the crop camera in focal length limited situations.

I want the best techniques possible within the limits of what we actually do, why say stupid things like use a ground glass filter, when my request is completely fair and reasonable?

57
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 01:02:16 AM »
And way back when I was shooting 20D and 50D, the 50D sure gave me more detail for soccer pics.

And I guess all the tons of wildlife guys shooting 7D cameras are all foolish and should have just used a 5D2.

What kind of retort is that? Of course a crop camera with "more" will deliver "more".

I have always said there are very good reasons for using a crop camera over cropping a ff one, not least is cost, ease of framing, frame rate, etc etc, but "crazy clear" differences in resolution are not realistic and not achievable in even the most stringent of artificial testing scenarios.

58
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:54:45 AM »
"People use them all different ways. I have some tripod shots that make it crazy clear. Romy has tripod and hand-held test/bird shots that make it clear. I do have some shots of a woodpecker, I have to dig them up and put them online. It was pretty clear my 7D put more detail on it even though hand-held and at least ISO1600."



I'll believe it when I see them, no actually I won't, because when I did it there wasn't a meaningful difference so I will know you are not being fully open. Even in the absolute best set up totally artificial and remote from reality shooting test environments, in situations that maximise the differences and favour the crop camera, there is very little difference.

If you have shots that make it "crazy clear" you are not testing what I am asking.

59
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:24:14 AM »

Come on now.... the only way this is going to happen is if someone does a controlled test.... it does not happen under normal use...
I'd go a step further: Why should I spend big bucks on a long lens and then use it unsupported? Getting a cheaper one and a good tripod for the difference would lead to better results.
Not that I'd want to handhold them for the amount of time normally involved with wildlife and such anyway.

Well I don't know about you but the vast majority of people I see using big white lenses are using them on a monopod, which isn't a test bench tripod. Of course there are many wildlife shooters using tripods, but one of the main selling points for the MkII superteles is that they are all handholdable, indeed there is one poster here who regularly uses his 800mm handheld and several who use the 600mm handheld.

There are so many long lens shooters for whom a tripod isn't an option, most sports shooters can't use tripods, paparazzi can't, have you been on safari? No tripods, sure you can use a bean bag or a window mount etc, but they also are not test bench level support. Th list goes on and on.

60
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 28, 2014, 12:15:12 AM »
I just got a 5ft "alligator" named Mr Chompy*, I was thinking of ideas to make him move across the yard at a reasonable pace along a track.

But maybe I could strap a couple of my chickens* to a fan, at least we'd get the feather details  ;)

If you do tape a squirrel to your fan I'd suggest gaffer tape rather than duct tape, duct tape can really mess up the finish on the fan blades..........

*Mr Chompy is a soft toy, my chickens are real.

In all seriousness I actually did the tests a long time ago when I was interested in getting a 7D and compared it to my 1Ds MkIII (cropped) of the dog running across the yard, with 5 acres I have plenty of room to be focal length limited and the dog will chase a ball thrown to the same spot all day and night quite happily. Unfortunately I don't have the results anymore but might try again if I can borrow the 7D and temperatures drop below the 90's.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 152