August 22, 2014, 09:54:14 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 - RLPhoto

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224
1
I find that my jobs/month is about the same but my rates are starting to rise. Which is great if you don't have a car payment and the house is paid off. Which basically means I'm almost completely living off my photography income and sometimes getting the occasional big job that gets me a new piece of kit.

I'd hate to have to do 30 weddings @ 2500 and I'd rather slowly build my portfolio to get 10 weddings at 5k each. My expenses are minimum and I don't burn myself out.

2
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 17, 2014, 08:12:29 AM »
Quote
We are now WELL into the era of significantly improved DR.

Basically 12+ vs. 13+ stops. The DR meme is driven entirely by BS DxO tests that aren't even physically possible (i.e. claims of >14 stops from a 14-bit ADC).

Actually, it's more like 10.x stops vs. 13.x stops. I agree, DXO's PrintDR numbers are BS. Just use DXO's ScreenDR numbers, which are literal measurements taken directly from RAW, and a far more trustworthy number. Canon IS behind by about two stops. That is a FACTOR OF FOUR TIMES. DXO would have you believe it was closer to three stops, or EIGHT times...I agree, BS, and highly misleading. That doesn't change the fact that two stops is still a meaningful difference...always has been.

once again, wrong wrong wrong, which is so bizarre because then you flip around and say that photosite density doesn't matter for noise and only sensor size does!!!! that is like saying 1+1=2 and no 1+1 does not equal 2 at the same time.

I think I may begin to see part of our disconnect. Maybe a little clarification of what I think of when I say some of these things would help.

So, first off, I do believe that only sensor size really matters from a fundamental IQ standpoint. I believe that "noise" is relative to sensor size. That's a fairly general statement, maybe I've been lax in my specificity in the past. So, to clarify this first point...I believe that photon shot noise is relative to sensor size. Very specifically, I believe that the total amount of photon shot noise, which affects the signal top to bottom, from the highlights to the shadows, which is an intrinsic part of the real image signal itself, is fundamentally relative to total sensor area.

In that respect, I believe larger sensors will always outperform smaller sensors given similar technology, for identical framing. Assuming non-similar technology, I believe that it is possible, for a short period of time, for a sensor of smaller area to outperform a sensor of larger area...but only so long as the larger sensor's technology is inferior. I believe the generational gap between the small and large sensor would need to be fairly large for the smaller sensor to outperform a larger sensor...within a single generation, I honestly do not believe that any smaller sensor would outperform a larger sensor in terms of overall IQ.

I believe this, because if you frame a subject identically in frames of different physical sizes, the larger the frame, the more total light you gather. That's it. I don't really think that needs any further qualification. More light, better IQ. It's better if you don't normalize, it's better if you do normalize. More total light gathered per unit area of subject, better IQ. It's as simple as that.
---

Alright, second. Read noise. I consider read noise to be a fairly distinct form of noise, different in nature and impact than photon shot noise. I do NOT believe that read noise has anything to do with pixel size or sensor size. I believe read noise has to do with the technology itself. I believe read noise is a complex form of noise, contributed to from multiple sources, some of them electronic (i.e. high frequency ADC unit), some of them material in nature (i.e. sensor bias noise, once you average out the random noise components, is fixed....as it partly results from the physical material nature of the sensor itself, it's physical wiring layout, etc.) I believe read noise affects overall image quality, but in a strait up comparison of two images from two cameras with identical sensor sizes, read noise in an invisible quantity. It doesn't really matter how much you scale your images, whether you scale them up or down, whether you normalize or not. Before any editing is performed, read noise is an invisible deep shadow factor, it cannot usually be seen by human eyes.

In this respect, two landscape photos of the same scene taken with different full frame cameras are all largely going to look the same. Photon shot noise is going to be the same, it may just be more finely delineated by a sensor with smaller pixels. Normalize them all, without any other edits, and you aren't going to notice much of any difference between the images. The most significant differences are likely to be firmware/setting related...a Daylight white balance setting will probably differ between cameras (one may be slightly warm, another slightly cold), small nuances of exposure may differ between cameras (one may slightly overexpose, another may slightly underexpose), there may be nuanced differences in color rendition that cater to different personal preferences.

When it comes to read noise, to me, that is all about editing latitude. Because it's a deep shadow thing, it doesn't manifest until you start making some significant exposure adjustments. You have to lift shadows at very low ISO by several stops before the differences between a camera with more sensor+ADC DR and a camera with less sensor+ADC DR really start to manifest. Those differences only matter at ISO 100 and 200, they are significantly diminished by ISO 400, and above that the differences between cameras are so negligible as to be nearly meaningless...sensor size/photon shot noise totally dominate the IQ factor.

I do believe that normalization is important to keep the frequency of photon shot noise, which is the primary visible source of noise in images that have not been edited, at the same frequency for comparison purposes. I do believe that normalization will and should show differences between larger and smaller sensors. I do not believe, however, that normalization of a non-pulled image is going to have any impact on how deep the blacks appear to an observer. I believe the only thing that can actually measure the differences in the deep shadows, where read noise exists, are software algorithms. I do believe that having lower read noise means you have better editing latitude when editing a RAW image in a RAW editor, and that for the purposes of editing, lower read noise, which leads to increased dynamic range (primarily by restoring what would have otherwise been lost to read noise in the shadows) is a good thing, and something that can and does certainly improve certain types of photography. This is the fundamental crux of my belief that DXO's PrintDR numbers are very misleading, and why I prefer to refer to their ScreenDR numbers...as the increase in DR that you gain from having lower read noise is only really of value WHEN editing a RAW image and lifting shadows. Otherwise, I really don't care about comparing cameras within a "DXO-specific context"...I care about comparing cameras based on what you can actually literally do with them in real life. (I KNOW you disagree with this one, but we should just agree to disagree here, because neither of us is ever going to win this argument. :P)

That is my stance on these things. I am pretty sure you'll disagree in one way or another, and that's ok. However I do not believe that my assessment of these things is fundamentally wrong. I believe it may be different than your assessment, or DXO's assessment for that matter. But I do not believe I have a wrong stance on this subject. I separate photon shot noise and the impact it has on overall IQ (which is significantly greater) from read noise, and the impact it has on the editing latitude you might experience when adjusting exposure of a RAW image in a RAW editor at an unscaled, native image size.
I disagree with you. The total light gathered matters more than sensor size and if you give the same amount of light to different sized sensors, the resulting noise is very similar. Tony Northrup had a great video on that and showed how ISO is skewed because of sensor size.

3
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 16, 2014, 05:58:18 PM »
I'd like the Touch IU added on top of whatever is already in place w/ an option to turn it off. It'd be a win for all who use it and those who don't need it.

4
EOS Bodies / Re: popup-flash - made a "pro feature"?
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:20:58 AM »
Well my H3D II has a pop up flash. :P I guess that makes it an entry level camera.

5
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:17:09 AM »
B+w on all my lenses. The difference between is negligible and if your shooting a strong enough back light to get flare off the UV filter, your probably already getting flare from the lens anyway.

However being able to wipe off my lens with a shirt, drop them in and out of bags with no lens cap, grab and touch them anyway I want, avoiding dirt and dust on the front element, and potentially protect against a stray object finding your front element out weigh any nearly invisible difference in IQ. Plus when you resell, the front element looks absolutely perfect.

The times where the filter comes off is when using my LEE system or a polarizer on UW lenses.

6
Canon General / Re: A Rundown of EOS 7D Mark II Information
« on: August 15, 2014, 08:06:30 AM »
I don't know about the layered sensor or the 12fps but it is speced better than the 61 af point, 24mp, 10fps body I'd like to see. Soon all will be revealed....

7
While very cool, I'm satisfied with the 16-35 f/4L already. Too late sigma. :P

8
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 12, 2014, 04:54:26 PM »
Just out of interest, what flashes are you using at 1/1600 sync?

Schneider Kreuznach  has some 1/1600th second sync leaf shutter lenses for the PhaseOne system. They are apparently extremely good...I think the price starts at around six grand for a 28mm prime.

You might find this article insightful:

http://www.kern-photo.com/2013/01/why-leaf-shutter-lenses-matter/

No, I wasn't interested in the shutter, I have been shooting leaf shutter lenses since the mid seventies, I was interested in what flash puts out a decent amount of usable power in under 1/1600 sec.

Leaf shutters are often held up as some kind of golden bullet, especially here, but they have all sorts of their own issues (I own four) and what people seem to fail to grasp is that flash duration at decent power levels is normally much longer than 1/1600.

As I understand it, the higher sync speed allows you to shoot, with flash, at MUCH faster apertures in brighter ambient light than you are normally able to with slower sync speeds. If you read the article I linked, it becomes pretty clear why people want a high flash sync and how they use it.

Yes, I know all that and it wasn't the answer to my question, which was pretty simple, what flash is R Gomez using when he is syncing at 1/1600.

More specifically I'd like to know which flash model so I can look up the t1 time and look at the duration at various power settings. It would be nice to know the specific leaf shutter lenses he is using so we can work out the effective second aperture too. I don't want more links, just an answer to a simple question.

The broncolor scoro S series is probably the best option with some parabolics to keep as much power in those durations. On the cheaper side, the PCB Einsteins @ half power will sync with my H3D with little power loss on the standard cyber commander @ 1/800th. Which can still push a big octobox or a PLM pretty far in daylight.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Suggestions of a Canon MF announcement at Photokina!
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:10:55 PM »
What would really be crazy is if canon made a FF 645 dual-pixel AF MF format sensor for their vaporware MF system.  :o

10
Canon General / Re: Another Canon Medium Format Mention
« on: August 11, 2014, 01:10:03 PM »
To all of my dear friends and my Teachers :
Please Let me ask you some thing =
How many of us/ You will spend $ 25,000 (+)  US Dollars for  New Canon Medium format Camera ( 56-64 MP)= Body only ?.
How many of us/ you will buy the Big new Format Lens  2-3 Lens = $ 30,000-$ 35,000 (+) US Dollars ?


Yes, If We know the number of Prospective Buyers, May be Canon Company can know , how much the net profit that they will get from us.

Sorry, Not Me---May be The Real PRO, who make money from the Advertizing  Photos on Magazine or The Bill Board / Graphic Designers.

Have a great work week, Sir/ Madam.
Surapon
If there is a company who could make MFD affordable again to the average pro, I'd be canon or Pentax at the moment. Canon made FF affordable in a sense and if they play their cards right, wouldn't even have to compete directly with the d800 and undercut hassy and phase with a budget MF system. I seriously doubt it will ever amount to more than text on a rumor site, but hey I quite like competition.

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Fuji Full Frame X-PRO2 coming 2015
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:33:02 PM »
If it's got an electronic shutter, I'll be all over that.

12
I just picked up a unit and I quite like it. Cheap, does SCS, Works on Thrid party cams with 3 groups, and works normally with my canon stuff. I haven't tested its consistancy yet but the third party option alone means it will remain part of my kit until something better comes along.

13
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Another Nikon full-frame
« on: August 09, 2014, 10:29:05 PM »
If you throw enough ideas on the wall, something has to stick eventually.  ;D

14
Lenses / Re: Canon EF 11-24 f/2.8L Coming [CR1]
« on: August 09, 2014, 08:59:52 PM »
I kinda lost my burning for an UW with the 16-35 f/4L. It's just so darn good for the price.

That good? Worth upgrading from 1740?

The 16-35/f4L makes the 17-40 look like the kind of lens you get with those camera plus lens plus film things. Yes, the 17-40 really is that bad and if you didn't realise it, get the 16-35 (or just for a day) and you'll soon see why.

Really?  The 16-35 is certainly the better lens, but you might be  exaggerating just a tad.


lol no he's not.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0

or

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=0&LensComp=949&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

What landscapes do you see that are shot at f/4.0?  The f/8.0 review is much more applicable, and an f/11.0 or f/16.0 would be even better comparison of the two.
All lenses after f/11 are killed by diffraction, it's not really a factor at all but below that range, the 16-35mm f4 is better at every aperture.

Realistically, the 16-35mm is also more consistent with the copys produced and the worst 16-35mm is probably better than the best 17-40L.

15
Reviews / Re: NIKON Releasing a Medium format DSLR 50MP
« on: August 09, 2014, 08:55:48 PM »
Exactly what pentax is doing and is a big shift for MFD. Inversely, I sold the majority of my 35mm kit and I'm loving MFD. I would probably drop my 5d3 to an aps-c camera if I was in a pinch but I wouldn't let my Blad go so easily.

The problem Pentax seems to have is that it really doesn't have the resources that Canon or Nikon would in terms of either offering improved features or building a modern lens line-up.

The 645z has more AF points that most MF cameras for example but there all clustered around the centre because its reusing an ASPC AF system, really not much better than your typical central AF point on other MF cameras. As you've said before it lacks LS lenses as well.

With the lens selection on offer today the 645z to me clearly seems to be aimed at the landscape/macro photographer. The problem I'd say is that whilst the body is much cheaper than alternative MF the lenses are not and these markets are very price dependant, there aren't many amateur or pro landscape shooters who can afford to spend $15,000+ on their setup.
That's the thing here, Pentax or anyone who can get the 50mp Sony sensor in a affordable body with LS lenses will shift MFD back into reach of the average professional. I certainly would have bought a 645z and a pair of LS lenses assuming that pentax can also manage to make the lenses affordable too. (Which shouldn't be too hard since you can find there older LS lenses really cheap w/ 1/500th syncs.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 224