« on: September 18, 2014, 10:51:54 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.
I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;
The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.
A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.
This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.
NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.
This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:
This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.
Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your game...it's really not difficult.
Not my idea of minimal processing, besides, what you are saying is the appearance of detail in the bird is actually uncorrected noise. Which is a point I have made many times too.
But whatever, if it floats your boat I am glad you are happy.