November 28, 2014, 12:15:20 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 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 186
451
Lenses / Re: Which Tilt/Shift lens to choose?
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:50:22 PM »
I would recommend the MII 24mm, both 24mm are L's but the MkII is considerably better both in IQ and functionality.

It will give you more "selective focus" control than the 17, it takes standard sized filters, with a 2XTC it will go to 48mm so you get even more selective focus. Also if you can stitch you will get the fov of the 17 at much higher quality too.

I have the 17 and use it a lot, but I need the fov in one shot.

The 45mm is a comparative dog, it desperately needs upgrading. If you want to play on the cheap the 90 is the only other one I would recommend, the IQ is very high and for product work and it is very fine, it works well with extension tubes too.

452
EOS Bodies / Re: 7DII No Wifi
« on: September 15, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »
Blaming the shell for no WiFi is simply a blatant attempt at excusing their crippling the camera. No wireless flash control alone should have ppl up in arms.
WiFi is now a basic feature & cost very little to incorporate.  :o ppl excusing is ridiculous. We ready have WiFi & NFC in every every thing from your phone, car, watches & rings. Heck even your house front door can be opened with NFC.

It does have wireless flash control, optical wireless flash control. It does not have radio wireless flash control.

453
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 15, 2014, 12:07:22 AM »


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

I think your still missing the point we are trying to make, though. It doesn't matter if they aren't "as recoverable" with the default metered settings. If that turns out to be a regular problem, then you have TONS of room to underexpose with a D810 or any other Exmor camera, preserve the highlights and ensure they have detail, and you'll still have tons of shadow recovery ability.

What you guys are talking about is just the default metered, tone-curved response in a RAW editor. The dynamic range of the sensor doesn't have anything to do with that. More dynamic range is more dynamic range. You can have highlights as richly colored and detailed as you want to by properly utilizing the greater DR of an Exmor, without sacrificing the shadows.

You can make all the arguments you want about how incapable the average user might be in regards to actually being able to extract the most performance out of a camera like the D810. I think that's just more misdirection, though. If you look at what people are doing with those cameras, they clearly know how to put that extra DR to good use, how to extract the most performance from them. Especially photographers who know what RAW is and are going to be using RAW (which I think is a much greater percentage of those buying cameras above the $2000 mark than those buying below).

Even for those who start out not knowing much about how to use a digital camera are still capable of learning, and with more capable hardware comes the greater ease of producing amazing works of photographic art. I for one would love to see novices creating photos with rich blacks, instead of photos riddled with vertical banding (a fairly common sight on 500px "Fresh".) (Which I know for some, such as Sporgon, intrudes upon their prized elite status as a "real" photographer, a status for which they would apparently happily give up having better hardware in their own hands if it meant keeping the non-photographer masses non-photographers...a reasoning I honestly cannot fathom.)

I'm not missing the point, and I don't consider Nikon users dumb. I do take issue with constant references to "this is x amount better" when there is limited experience of both, and when that limited experience of both includes the obvious falsehood that both must be exposed the same, I cringe.

I am not saying Canon has more "high end DR" or that it has as much as Exmor, I am saying anybody that is so unfamiliar with the kit as to not know the differences in optimal exposures for both isn't going to get optimal results. Sure it might be classified as meter compensation, I have no problem with that, some cameras allow you to calibrate  your meter; in the old film days we used to decide how far off the iso rating was to what we could actually shoot at, 1/3 stop was common for slide film.

454
After reading yet another hatefest aimed at DxOLabs just recently, I am a bit surprised about the criticism aimed at Roger Cicala and his latest test report. DxOLabs got slammed hard because they measured lens performance together with the camera, and go figure, Canon didn't look good. Now Roger measured lens performance alone, Canon again didn't look stellar, and people throw another tantrum.

The only type of test, however contrived, which would find common acceptance here, would be one that yields results saying "Canon is better, pictures shot with Canon gear are automatically better, and people using Canon are a smart, attractive bunch, unlike users of other equipment."

I hope you are not including me as a criticizer of Roger, several times I have written of my respect for him, his work, his results and conclusions.

I don't care what gear anybody uses, I use my selection because I felt it was the right thing for me to get, and I might point out that Roger is a 6D Canon system owner. I don't care how my gear "tests" I care how it works.

If your comment is directed in part at me I would also ask what is wrong in questioning the value in such a test, especially given that the tester himself has replied that he agrees it is of extremely limited, nay "pointless", value.

455


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

Precisely.

Precisely virtually zero practical value.

456
And when we learn to take pictures without camera bodies the results might be relevant.

Yet more critical over analysis of a non relevant point. How a D810 and Nikon 24-70 f2.8 performs compared to a 5D MkIII and 24-70 f2.8 is all I, as an educated camera system buyer, want to know.

Science require control of the variables. Too many variables and you can conclude nothing.


Photography isn't a science. If you don't include all the variables you end up with purely academic test results that have extremely limited, if any, real world value.

In my opinion, the picture on the page is photography, but the benchmark performance of different optics is optical lens science. http://www.answers.com/topic/lens-1  There is no objective way to measure photography. But, there is, (and needs to be) a way to objectively measure lens performance. And, like all science, the best testing measurements require the best scientific method, which includes limiting variables to (hopefully)- one. Pax.

Why?

The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that the "best" tested lens will give the "best" photograph, when that is patently false. Even if you totally discount the photographer from the photograph making equation your fundamental point is flawed.

For example, you have an assignment to photograph Usain Bolt crossing the line of the 100m at the next Olympics, you can use any camera system, just get the image. For arguments sake the Canon 400 f2.8 tests better than the Nikon 400 2.8, but the Nikon has more MP and more DR, however the Canon has better AF, but the Nikon system can resolve more even though it doesn't test as well. Hm, the Canon can do more fps. Now which do you choose? The lens that esoterically "tests better" or the the other system that scores much better for more meaningful metrics; or the system that "wins" your test but for reasons other than that...........

I'm sorry, sir, but you simply cannot conduct science in the way you have described here. :)  Once again, there are way too many variables. The fact is, that if you photographed Usain Bolt crossing the finish line with two identical situations except, one, with a good lens, and, the other with a great lens, the photo with the better lens will be better. That is simply a fact. About that there can be no rationale doubt or conflict.

Were I a Knight you could call me sir, as I am not you can't.

Were photography a science you might have a point, as it isn't you don't.

If you assume the AF, the AA filter, the demosaicing algorithm, etc etc have no impact on the image output your example might be valid, as they do, it is not.

457


I'd like to know the actual resolution of a lens regardless of body.

Hearty Amen.

Why? Academia? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in and of itself that I can see, but seeing as how we pay thousands of dollars for these lenses that we can't use without bodies I question any results relevance.

Convolution.

Ask yourself this question.  Why, when DPReview tests a body, do they use a quality prime at an optimal aperture, mounted to a heavy studio tripod, with careful focus bracketing and remote release?

The answer is, so that the lens so dramatically out-resolves the body that the results you get are almost entirely limited by the body itself.

Why do you want that?  So that you can estimate how the body will perform with other lenses.

Same thing with lenses.  How does the lens perform by itself?  You want to know that so you can estimate how it will perform with any body.

If you don't do that, you're left testing every possible lens/body combination and retesting every lens every time a new body is released.

Convolution allows you to avoid that.

1/R^2 = 1/Rs^2 + 1/Rl^2, where R is system resolution, Rs is sensor resolution, and Rl is lens resolution.

If you know Rs and Rl independently, you can find R.

Convolution does not allow for lens variation, it can only give you a figure for the lens or lenses tested.

Convolution does not allow for factors most commonly used in actual photography, like auto focus.

Convolution is of limited value in telling you what you will actually get image wise.

Photography, despite the best efforts of many here, is still about images, not equations. Nothing will truthfully tell you what you will get out of your camera until you take an image with your camera and your lens in your shooting situation.

458
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:24:19 PM »
Well, as you say, maybe it's just time to get empirical. I'll be renting another camera soon here...I think probably the A7s and if I can the necessary adapter to use my Canon lenses, so the optics can be the same across the board. I believe, and this is based on my own experience with D800 and D600/610 files, that the differences can be quite meaningful. I believe the shadows are deeper, more richly colored deeper than a Canon file, etc. It's really just come down to the data, though...so I'm going to get some, and share it all. I'm actually not even expecting that to really end the debate...what some people consider meaningful could very well still be considered meaningless by others...but, at least I can put together some concrete, real-world data that can be referenced in the future.

As we are talking about a visual medium ot would make sense to post visual illustrations, unfortunately my hands are tied, the Nikon files I work are not mine and I have no examples of Canon's and Nikon's being shot during the same shoot I can post.

As for shadows, I 100% agree, Exmor sensors have a meaningful difference on screen, particularly if your screen is too bright, I need no "proof" of that. I do question the need to raise Zone II "Textured black; the darkest part of the image in which slight detail is recorded" up significantly on any kind of regular basis though, to "need" to do that demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of core exposure ideas, and any hope of turning even Exmor Zone II exposed areas into meaningful detail with realistic colour, texture and detail is pointless. Yes it doesn't have the noise and banding a Canon file might have before finishing processing, but it still won't make for a pleasingly detailed and toned area of the image.

459
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:11:11 PM »


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

460
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 11:07:02 PM »

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

461
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:54:16 PM »
"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.

Long term yes, short and mid term no, it was a killer time for many, I maintained my FD gear until 2004, so was a very late adopter.

But that was my point, Canon seem to make the decisions, tough though they may be, that actually do make sense to us in the long run. A generation behind here, one ahead there, it pales into insignificance in the long term, but Canon have a proven track record of making the "right" decisions for photographers, not every photographer, but enough to keep a more than viable business running well up until this point, I don't know if anything has changed that we should doubt their future abilities.

The 5D MkIII is two years old now and is generally accepted as the best general purpose 135 format digital camera ever made by anybody, it is just now being "matched" by Nikon, not embarrassed, not left in the weeds, matched, quite how that situation brings about the constant Canon MUST DO THIS, or must do that, or improve three stops to be competitive etc etc just doesn't make sense.

There is a complete disconnect between the rabid critics and the capabilities of the actual cameras available.

462
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:40:18 PM »

The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........

I don't agree, the 1Ds was a groundbreaking camera, as were the 1Ds MkII and 1Ds MkIII. I can easily see Canon putting it all into a 1Ds MkIV/1DXs, then let that trickle down to the 5D MkIV.

Given their sensor output up until now I see the real reason for the 1 series 1DX "amalgamation" was Canon's inability to make that mythical >35MP, they couldn't make a 1Ds MkIV two years ago, who knows if they can now. I certainly know there is a heavy built up demand from 1Ds MkIII users, myself included, to upgrade our equipment, personally I am more interested in a 1DX MkII (22MP >10fps) than most 1Ds MkIII users who want >35MP and 6 or so fps.

But I believe the truth is most long term 1Ds MkIII users are more interested in the upgrade for business reasons than pure IQ issues, sure more whatever will be nice, but most of us have made good enough livings with what we have and our output is not limited by IQ.
Do they have time to let stuff that others are putting out 5 years ago trickle down from a 1DXs at this point?
And $8000 for an exmor-like sensor from Canon when an adapted A7R is a small fraction? Granted you'd still need another body along with the A7R, but even then A7R+5D3 still costs way less than a 1DXs type camera. And if you went D810 alone, then way, wayyy less.
And they are gonna be soon creamed on 4k video front.
The 5D4 could easily have worse video than even the 5D3. It will probably take at least a year for ML to get RAW going on it, assuming they even allow ML on it so if it doesn't offer RAW built-in, it would be, out of box far worse than the 5D3 for video. It really must have a good 4k 10bit and 1080pRAW. Otherwise it will land with the biggest thud in the lower to mid-end motion picture world ever. Simply producing a 5D3 built-in video but not it does 1080p60 instead of 1080p30 forget it.

So buy a D810, nobody os stopping you.


The assumption is that I give a damn about video. I don't. I still don't own a DSLR with video and absolutely don't care if my next DSLR has it either.

463
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:36:14 PM »
..... the film DSLR was on the way out .......

That would be an SLR  :)

464
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:34:21 PM »
"I don't know that we necessarily need a scientific person to hypothesize here. There is a simple explanation that accounts for what you see: metering. Since Canon's iFCL metering was introduced, their algorithms are geared towards preserving highlights."
 
That is totally invalid as I was talking about pre iFCL files as well as post iFCL. The same thing is observable.

"I too have noticed that Nikon cameras tend to run a bit bright in the highlights by default. There doesn't appear to be as much recoverability from a default metered exposure.

Again, though...this is all just illusory. It also doesn't actually change the core facts about dynamic range. "


Illusionary - semantics, the people that regularly work both manufacturers files all say the same thing, if you expose the shots the same the Canon camera is at a very strong shadow disadvantage, if you "over expose" the Canon in relation to the Nikon, that is, get the optimal exposure for each sensor, then the differences are much smaller, yes they are there, but they are smaller. Further, if you expose both to the Canon's optimal exposure the Nikon will not have the highlight detail the Canon will.

It is the same as colours, everybody knows default Canon files are more red than Nikon files, it doesn't matter what body and lens, make a profile and you can get them close enough, but they are intrinsic characteristics of the manufacturers equipment. Canon mounts and dials go one way, Nikon go the other etc etc.

"I think roughly a 20% difference on average is what your likely to get in an average situation."

That is not what my testing showed, in "average situations" i.e. AF and handholding (I would venture is the "average" for most people most of the time) I found no reliable difference.

465
Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: September 14, 2014, 09:29:42 PM »
I consider myself a pretty good amateur. Been shooting since the mid-80's. And, I enjoy messing around in post production. However, I work about 70 hours a week, and am a single parent. So, I don't have much time for post production. So, the question is, has anyone compared the stock Canon 6D jpeg rendering with the stock out of the box DxO9 RAW rendering, that can then be saved small enough to post on Facebook, CanonRumors, or whatever? I now understand about coming back 10 years later and having RAW for later manipulations. But, I'm sort of the de facto photographer for my kids high school teams, and I'd like to be able to upload the photos to SmugMug that night, and I either have time to just upload the 6D jpegs, or have DxO9 do it's thing on "automatic fix" then upload to SmugMug. So, which is better- auto program 6D in camera or DxO9 auto? For instance, to upload this shot I took in RAW to this post, I had to go convert it as it's too big to upload RAW. Not a problem unless you took 200+ pictures at the softball tournament...
Thx for any advice.

If you are getting the results you want and need from jpegs then there is no real reason to shoot RAW.

BUT, shooting 200 or 2,000 files isn't a good reason to not shoot RAW, all you need to do is process one shot how you want it and then sync all the others, you can select any outup size you want.

I can make and upload a 200 image web gallery to my site from RAW shots via Lightroom in about 10 minutes, that includes the FTP upload. Lightroom also has a SmugMug plugin that integrates and syncs your selected images automatically.

If you did move to RAW shooting, Lightroom should be your only purchase, it will give you the highest level of quality and edit-ability as well as integrated ease of use and functionality.

Pages: 1 ... 29 30 [31] 32 33 ... 186