October 24, 2014, 12:14:43 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 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 172
61
.... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

Here's an example of this from today, the sky was clipped, but after some brushing around in LR it doesn't matter since it was all grey anyway (well, bluish grey).  I call the shot "Thinking of DR discussions" :->

He may have been saying "goodbye Jon". It appears that jrista has left the building...


Nope, not gone. Just extracting myself entirely from the debate...all debates. I honestly don't know what I'm debating for, it's done nothing for me, the response from this community has clearly indicated they don't want me involved. So, I'm not. I've got better things to do. (BTW, the only way to stop getting notified in the new replies list of your activity in threads is to delete yourself entirely from those threads (in case anyone was curious)...therefor, this post will be deleted at the end of the day.)

I hope you reconsider removing yourself from all debates/discussions. You are one of the more knowledgeable and helpful participants on this forum and have much to offer. Just give the sensor argument a rest...at least until the 5DlV is released :)

Don't worry, he is as prolific as ever.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=20664

And I agree, the place would be poorer without him.

62
I do not thing it will be easy to resolve.  There are a few issues that will keep this alive until Canon beats all other sensors or joins them.  I do not think that Canon will go out of business.  They will swallow their pride and put a Sony Sensor in a DSLR before Canon will go bankrupt. 

  • Human Nature people hate admitting their wrong.
  • Pig headed stubbornness of people that cannot see another point of view.
  • The people that are never satisfied no matter how good their gear is.
  • Trolls Trolls TROLLS will you stop feeding the TROLLS ALREADY. 
The above list will be complaining about something until the end of all internet forums.   

I wish that DR did not bleed into other discussion and ruin them. The 7D II discussions for example.

I am pragmatically in the more DR camp.   The real issue is the read noise.  DR was not something I ever noticed until I bought my Nex6 but the read noise is much more noticeable. 

I cannot use my Sony for what I do with my Canon cameras.  I cannot use my 6D or 60D for what I do with my Nex6.  I am not going to drop all my Canon gear and buy a Nikon the ergonomics are a crime against humanity.

Lets face it a Sony Camera  + Meta-bones adapters really means who needs auto focus.  Because it is so slow you will be manual focusing most of the time.  That is what I like about the Nex6 it forces my to slow down and compose my shot.  But that is not for everyone.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000

Why on earth do you both think Canon will put a Sony sensor in one of their FF cameras? They do not feel they are 'behind' in sensor tech, in many of the metrics used to measure sensors they aren't.

We all love car analogies here, and we love to pull them apart even more, but what you are saying is similar to saying this years Ford doesn't have the top in class BHP figures, even though it does have the best MPG, towing capacity, torque figures, and the best sales record, because of this next year Ford will have to use a GMC engine. Get real.

63
I have been a Canon user my entire life.  I love the product, including DPP which is my RAW converter of choice.

I presently shoot with a 1D Mark IV and a 5D Mark III, which are fully supported by my present version of DPP.  The 7D Mark II requires that I update my DPP.

Here is my problem with that.....

The newer version of DPP does not support my operating system.  I run Vista 64.  Updating my operating system requires that I go to Windows 8 which needs a clean install.  Huge job.  Also, I'm not sure that a lot of my current software will run on Windows 8.  I have CS4 as well as plugins such as NIK, Neat Image and a slew of other free standing applications.

As much as I was not comfortable with the user interface of Lightroom when I tried a demo last year, I thought I would now have to go that route.  Guess what?  Right.  It's now only available under CC and I refuse to rent software on a monthly fee basis which is why I still run CS4.

I'm 72 years old so I guess my 1D4 and 5D3 will have to do me the rest of my life or until my computer cr@ps out and I have no choice.

All Canon had to do was continue to support the operating system and I would have added a 7D2 to my bag.

Okay..... rant over.   :D

Quit your ranting and do your homework. LR is available as a perpetual license from any number of sources, even in Canada. Adobe themselves even still sell it!

https://www.adobe.com/products/catalog/software._sl_id-contentfilter_sl_catalog_sl_software_sl_mostpopular.html?promoid=KLXMV

64
Lenses / Re: Stacking drop-in filters?
« on: October 13, 2014, 01:44:27 PM »
Even if you could physically manage to stack filters in the drop-in slot, it is a bad idea optically for the same reason that it is not recommended to shoot with the slot completely empty--the lens is *designed* to have a flat piece of glass with a specific thickness at that position.  If it's not there, you will notice a slight loss of imaging performance.  It will still focus, and the center will remain sharp, but the image periphery would not be as sharp as it would with the glass there.

If you insert additional glass, this again will have an impact on the image quality.

Why do front filters not have this problem?  They don't because the light passing through it hasn't been focused yet.

And what about lenses with rear gel holders like the 17-40, 16-35 MkI and MkII etc? Marks on the rear element are much more image impact inducing than marks on the front element.

65


Just for the record - you are takling about a company with a net income of  1.246 billion dollars, and the PS4 isn't the sole reason, why they are profitable.


The only reason Sony are not bankrupt is because their core business, insurance, earns nearly enough to service the massive losses of almost every other division of the corporation. They cannot sustain their current programs and cameras are not part of the historic electronics producer mentality the board members believe the company is famous for.

If Sony works best for you now then buy it, but I wouldn't expect the division to survive long enough to make a career out of using them unless they can hang on the coattails of the pro video division.

66
I just question what motive a photographer has for making a video like that. I watched the first two minutes, then fast forwarded through bits of it. If those features are important to him, then great, but to me this sort of thing always smacks of someone wanting to convince themselves that they have done the right thing.

Self aggrandizement.

I don't care what anybody else shoots, or their reasons for doing it. We should all make up our own minds on what camera system works best for us, even if you greatly admire another persons work that doesn't mean their gear would work best for you.

67
FOR SALE Photo Equipment / EF 16-35 f2.8L USM
« on: October 12, 2014, 10:58:21 PM »
Very good condition EF 16-35 f2.8L USM. One owner from new, serviced by Canon last year and not used since, which is the only reason I am selling it. Complete with hood, genuine caps, lens pouch, box, instructions, warranty card, and all original packaging. You will get to unpack this lens exactly as I did when I purchased it new.

I really like this lens, when I tested it against a MkII I couldn't see any differences, so I kept mine and didn't get the MkII! I also really like that it uses 77mm filters, the same as the 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8's, which saves a lot of money and hassle for CPL's etc.

I use the 17 TS-E for all my ultra wide work now and just don't use the 16-35 anymore, I used to use it a lot on the 1.3 crop 1 series but haven't used one of them for a couple of years, so although she is a fantastic lens, she just isn't getting any use.

I had it serviced by Canon a year or so ago and haven't used it since, they did the usual fiddle and did replace some internals, this lens is optically perfect. The front and rear elements are clean and clean, as the high res images illustrate, there is no noticeable dust inside either. The zoom and focus rings are smooth and quiet and the AF is fast silent and accurate.

PayPal and USA only, I'll ship via USPS insured at cost with a tracking number.

Make me an offer, but please don't insult either of us with a complete lowball  :)

68
EDIT: I scrolled through a folder where I keep my "nicer" pictures with lightroom. I was surprised to find how many had the histogram all the way to both sides.. that's where I got my 10 percent number. BTW, I ran through my folder of pictures from work (mostly indoors with controlled lighting) and found very few where it was noticeable, yet with my personal pictures, particularly outdoors shots with skies and/or clouds, there was that 10 percent number....

These are just my observations, and I will be the first to say it is not scientific and "your mileage will vary".

To support your ymmv observation - it's the same with me, outdoor shots with sky (and movement != bracketing or = tedious inter-frame blending) often could use a bit more dr....

... but you only realize if you really look for it, it's easy getting used to the usually "good enough" 11ev. Probably the reason why in the good ol' times people used these gradient sky filters :->. The question is how many of these shots actually have detail hidden in the clipped highlights or if a quick smudge over with the -ev brush would do it, too.
agreed....
here is another example from today... as you can see from the histogram, it is run up to the edges on both sides and technically, a bit more DR would have extended detail in the highlights and in the shadows..... but the reality is that there is very little of the picture where this extended range would have made a difference and in the end, you probably could not notice the difference.

This was shot on a 60D. EVERYTHING out there now for current DSLRs beats it for DR.... but most of the time it is good enough.... and yes, I WANT MORE DR!!!, so I pre-ordered a 7D2 :)

Don, can you post another image of that with the clipping warnings activated?

The reason is whilst the histogram is a representation of the RAW file it is pushed into the Melissa RGB colour space that is basically Prophoto but with a different gamma curve applied to it that means you can very easily have useful information well outside the indicated range.

I have posted this comparison many times. As can be seen, the histogram is a relatively poor indicator of what information is still there!

69
EOS Bodies / Re: AA Filter: Still Relevant, Marketing Ploy, or Obsolete?
« on: October 12, 2014, 04:48:52 PM »

For instance is there an impact on DR just because of the AA filter?  If this is more of an artistic choice, then why doesn't someone make the filter removable, or something you could layer onto a lens? Maybe that's impossible.  Just seems like whenever these high MP bodies drop there will be this discussion.

No.

Because at the sampling frequencies currently used it is much easier to sharpen accurately, than to try to de alias when aliasing occurs.

More MP negating the need for an AA filter is a paradox.

If you have a low MP sensor and a sharp lens, most users should be able to take a picture which shows pixelation. Any patterns in the image stand a chance of exciting moire/aliasing, so an optical low pass filter is very useful to avoid that - at the slight expense of ultimate resolution.

If you have a high MP sensor and a lens not capable of resolving as finely as the sensor, then under no circumstances will pixelation, moire or aliasing show up. So why not dispense with the AA filter?

However, there are some facts which have been overlooked in that second argument:

If it's impossible for the system to create that fine per pixel detail, why get rid of the AA filter? What possible resolution advantage can you gain by dispensing with it when there's a surplus of pixels anyway?

And what happens if that high MP body is paired with a sharper lens which can out resolve the sensor? Then we're back to square one. Pixelation can occur in certain circumstances, and then some users will find moire appear in their pictures - all because their lens/technique is able to make use of the extra resolution gifted to them by the camera manufacturer. Great, eh?

Only if you don't understand the way aliasing is created and if you ignore the way system resolution is arrived at. Stop thinking this lens out resolves that sensor or the other way around, it just doesn't work like that.

Look at the Nyquist limit, or as we often refer to it in digital photography, Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA), the more pixels we get the less aperture we have to show off those pixels. Already pixel density is such that f5.6 gives us the "sharpest" images, more pixels will demand ever better glass and the "sweet spot" will get lower and lower such that we will have less dof to display that resolution.

It isn't that diffraction will get worse, but at the moment we can resolve the diffraction above f8, which is the main reason the 36mp cameras don't actually return much better resolution figures than 24mp cameras, more mp will enable us to resolve the diffraction at apertures faster than f5.6. Once the diffraction limit (Nyquist limit) is hit then aliasing is no longer an issue and neither are AA filters. It will be a very long time before Nyquist limits are hit for very fast apertures.

70
EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrade Path Advice...
« on: October 12, 2014, 01:50:12 PM »
It is official, AFMA is supported with the 70-300 and 1.4TC as a separate setting from the naked 70-300 just like other supported lenses.

71
The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Quote
Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.
for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

There are posts that just stick to the facts, then there are posts where you implicitly or explicitly insult, or you make assumptions about what a person will do then tell the community that's what they are going to do in the future, such as when you said I'm just a complainer and Canon hater, and once Canon finally came out with a high DR camera, I'd move onto Nikon forums and find something else to complain about. I take issue with that. I have a specific complaint. I'm skeptical Canon is going to address it any time soon, and Canon's lack of action frustrates me, but that doesn't make me some kind of rabid Canon hater who is just going to hate on Canon because I want to hate on Canon...that's a misrepresentation of me, and yeah, I take that personally.

That kind of personal crap has been flying around these forums for weeks, and a lot of it is based on nothing but pure assumption. There is also the way "DRone" has become highly derogative, and that term is used with a number of members on these forums. There is the insulting and regular implication that "DRones" don't know how to use a camera or process their images. (These things aren't just directed at me, but at everyone you guys have decided to call a DRone.) You can't tell me that there isn't an intentionally personal and insulting aspect to most of the posts you guys write in response to anyone bringing up DR these days. IT IS PERSONAL.  >:( You guys have made it personal...maybe you don't realize you have...but you have. I've never seen so many insults flung on a forum outside of 4chan and reddit.

PBD, you haven't taken it as far as some, although you have made many of your posts personal recently. Neuro and Keith (and a couple others) seem to use the term DRone as a nasty derogative most frequently, alongside other thinly veiled insults. Kieth doesn't seem to be able to stop inferring that DRones are just bumbling idiots who don't know how to use a camera, don't know the first thing about post-processing, and regularly derides the photography of DRones when I'm quite sure he hasn't even seen the photography of most or any of them. There are a number of other members who have gotten quite personal and been deriding people's photography or artistic choices here as well...and that's just flat out rude. NONE of this has EVER been been done in a constructive manner...the reaction to "DRones" has always been a negative one, but lately it's down right rabid. Like a pack of wolves, you guys just pounce and never let up. If it was just about correcting someones incorrect facts, it could be done far, far more constructively...the way you guys go about it, it's (seemingly intentionally) destructive. (And again, I'm not just speaking for myself...there were pages upon pages of you guys and many others circling and attacking Dilbert on the D750 thread, over and over and over. I don't think much of Dilbert's opinions myself, I don't think he understands a lot of what he talks about...but wow, guys...)

It's insulting and it's personal. And when I say that, I'm not referring to the technical facts. I've been wrong on a couple recently. Fine, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. That's a trait I don't think any of you exhibit, though. There is a difference between pointing that and incorrect statement, and attacking and insulting those who make a mistake. You guys have added a personal undercurrent to this whole thing. Just the use of the term DRone, the way it's used, is quite insulting...let alone the defamation of character or defamation of people's work or anything like that.

But, as always, you take that out of context, my comment was in reply to a specific assertion, and assumption, of yours where you said I lump you in with "normal complainers", I was replying to a personal question from you, see how keeping the context of a comment changes the way people might perceive it?

Besides, you never stick to the facts, your posts play out exactly as Neuro so eloquently laid out, I have tried to engage you in non confrontational discussions on the "facts". Even in your completely "unbiased DR thread" you decided that the Exmor file was usable, I said for my purposes it isn't, you then get super defensive, I post a crop of your "holding detail outside the window" that illustrates there isn't any detail outside the window, you then wax lyrical about it was just an off the hip test and if you had been presented with that kind of need for shadow lift the Exmor would have been "better", Duh, we have all agreed that from day one, but you were not in that situation, your images didn't prove anything and your opinions are just that, your opinions.

As for your making mistakes, well we all do, but you are not " willing to admit when I'm wrong" your normal initial response is to attack, you then, when people can be bothered to correct you, get overwhelmed by straight forward evidence that you are wrong, then you get defensive and then paranoid and now, as in your latest 11mm pincushion nonsense, delete your replies. That is not admitting you are wrong, that is being pig headed in the face of being shown to be wrong and then getting in a bad mood about it.

If you can't see that the way you are, and the way you say it, is what elicits the responses it does, not your message, then you are beyond help.

72
The proper exposure is one where you don't clip anything that you want to retain and where you put enough light on to minimize noise as best as you can without clipping (or going quite so far as to make processing tricky and leaving too few highlight tones).

I would agree. But whether you increase exposure to minimize noise or decrease exposure to preserve more highlight detail, you are shifting tones away from where you want them to be in print. Hence the reference to middle gray.

Quote
Calling it like "people going around underexposing 3 stops" makes it sound like they are making mistaken exposures. You may not have meant to imply that, but many of those who post like that do, since they then say stuff, like learn how to set a proper exposure [insult insult].

I did not mean to imply that, but how else should I describe it? We are over and under exposing to achieve certain things.
for most of my shots I am able to expose in the middle. The histogram looks good and nothing runs off of either end... but for many shots (10 percent ?) I could use more range. 2 stops more DR would change that percentage from 10 percent down to about 1 percent... so yes, you can count me as one of those people who would like more DR out of their camera.

And the thing is, If I had those two extra stops, I would still expect more in the next camera... It is natural to expect improvements, just as it is natural to expect technical/scientific people to evaluate performance and identify weaknesses and strengths.. but why attack the messenger? If it doesn't matter to you, then say "that's nice" and ignore the whole debate. If it does mater to you, then debate the facts, not the person.

Don, the problem seems to me to be that people give an opinion that is personal or state a spurious "fact", and then get defensive when that opinion is questioned, they take it personally so the cycle begins.

For instance, I agree with you, more will be very welcome and even when it gets here yet more will be expected, but I could take issue with your numbers, which might sound personal to some, I suspect very few people have "issues" anywhere near 10% of the time (and in a subtle way you set yourself up for what might appear to some a personal attack, initially you put a question mark next to the 10% but then dropped it), if they did then all the film shooters ever, and every digital camera up to now would be found wanting an unacceptable amount of the time, and in general, my experience is, that just isn't true. Of course there will be people who shoot a specific type of scene where those numbers might be accurate, and you could very well be one of them, but to suggest that camera DR capabilities fail 10% of the time is not true for me, or for many of the photographers I speak to regularly and for whom I print.

People are very quick to take rebuttals of their personal opinions personally, they are unwilling or emotionally unable to accept that the comment they made to invoke the rebuttal wasn't a soundly based fact they can back up with supporting independent evidence.

73
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:04:27 PM »
I never purchased the lens because I did not like how things distorted at 10mm. Looking at TDP's examples, he demonstrates the problem well. Maybe it's not pincusion distortion, however if you compare the 10mm and 14mm images, look at the way everything ends up pointing towards the center at 10mm:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-10-22mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Whatever the hell you want to call it, I personally don't like that. The way the trees have a significant angle from the middle top half of the frame towards the corners. Everything is "pinching" towards the center. Every time I've tried the 10-22mm, 10mm just never seemed usable to me. I use 16mm on my 5D III, and I've never seen that kind of...what, you don't want it called distortion....the warping of the scene to fit in a rectilinear space? (I still think distortion is the right word, but whatever.)

Oh my. Face palm. Another categorical declaration from jrista that turns out to be completely fallacious.

It is called perspective, you have had problems with that before. It isn't just Neuro that doesn't want to call it distortion, it is everybody that has a basic understanding of perspective.

74
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 11, 2014, 05:55:40 PM »
...the kind of wicked pincushion you'll get at 11mm.

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means. 

Good grief. I know what it means. With the 10-22 on my 7D, at 10mm things appear "pinched" towards the center. Trees also get a much more significant tilt towards the periphery of the frame than with my 16-35mm.

Hmm...the bulbous front element is a real turnoff to me. If I was to pick up this lens, it would be for landscapes. The front element on this sucker would be really tough to create a filter holder for. Lee made a special one for the Nikon 14-24...it has a kind of "lens bag" like thing on the back that you attach to the holder and around the lens barrel. I think the only reason that works, is the 14mm, which still has a relatively bulbous front element, isn't as wide as an 11mm.

I don't know if lee could create a specialized filter holder for a Canon 11-24mm...and I wouldn't want to be without GNDs (especially with Canon cameras.) I'd also want to see the distortion. I tried out the 10-22mm EF-S on my 7D a couple times, but never bought it because the distortion at 10mm was a wicked pincushion (vertical lines would be strait out the center, but heavily angled outwards from the middle to the corners at the edges.) I suspect an 11mm for FF would be similar.

I'd really go for a 14-24mm f/2.8 from Canon though.

There is absolutely no connection between focal length and pincushion, or barrel, distortion.

There is absolutely zero reason to suspect a rumoured lens will display either type any more than it might have excessive CA, >3 stops of vignetting in the corners at f8 or any other types of aberrations.

The 17TS-E when shift stitched has an approximate fov of an 11mm lens yet is pincushion and barrel distortion free, it isn't free of distortion or aberrations, but it certainly doesn't display pincushion distortion.

75
Canon General / Re: More Canon Lens Mentions [CR2]
« on: October 10, 2014, 04:50:40 PM »
F4.0 would not surprize me. Canon reserves the biggest apertures for the prime lenses. ie. 14mm prime. If they did the zoom at 2.8 the 14mm prime would be less desireable.

The 14mm is a comparative dog (well the two I have used were and one was direct from LensRentals so was at least 'up to specs') and Nikon have had a 14mm f2.8 prime and 14-24 f2.8 zoom in their lineups for a long time.

Canon have got all the money they are going to realise from the 14mm MkII prime, any R&D costs were either returned or amortized long ago, it could become the $1,500 'budget' option if a matching zoom came out.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 172