September 02, 2014, 05:23:12 AM

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 - Northstar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96
1
EOS Bodies / Re: Are you planning to purchase a 7D2
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:48:10 PM »
probably...but not necesscelery!

2
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:47:12 PM »
I usually print 13x19" at home, and I usually do spend quite a lot of time working the shadows to get them to print nicely.

Trimming most of your post because...how on Earth do you even find time to write that much? And that's coming from someone who writes too much on forums!  :o

It doesn't take  lot of time when you've been typing since the age of six, programming since the age of eight, and have been programming for a living for some twenty years with a WPM count over 100. :P I can type nearly as fast as I think.

All I can say is that I only rarely encounter the issues you are complaining about. And I'm usually not using GND filters or a large number of HDR shots, but manually blending two frames.

For a scene requiring HDR I'm guessing that your shadow exposures are not bright enough. I'm also guessing that you are trying to shoot some scenes in one shot when you should have at least two. Your river shot with the blown out sky...I would shoot that as two frames on Canon or Nikon.

I can only guess because I've never been out shooting with you to observe what you're doing. But you talk as if every landscape you do has horrendous shadow noise. If that's happening then you need to adjust your shooting and processing.

You've built up in your mind how much better an Exmor sensor would be, how it would revolutionize your workflow. It's better, but it's not going to revolutionize your workflow or eliminate HDR/GND. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy a D810 or a Sony A7 series if you want one. Just don't build up Exmor so high in your mind that you buy one and end up complaining on their boards.

This has absolutely nothing to do with technique. My technique is not the problem. Neither is it an exposure problem. If you've actually read anything I've posted on the subject of my recent landscape photos, you would already know that I bracket all my landscape photos. Three or five frames usually. I always bracket. Always have, always will. You never really know if you want it for a landscape, so it's just my standard MO.

I've already blended HDRs for all of my photos, but also as I mentioned before...HDR blends are not perfect either, and they have their fair share of artifacts.

The reason I see noise in the shadows is when you expose to preserve the highlights, you push the rest of the exposure down. This is the opposite of ETTR. This is basically what highlight tone priority does. It's ETTL...you shift the histogram to the left, to pull the highlights back from the right-hand edge of the histogram. The goal, to make sure you have the necessary highlight fidelity, is for your saturation level in the image to top out at around 245 on average (8-bit, it scales to 16-bit). You WANT some headroom above that...you don't want to expose right to 255. That's where you end up clipping one or two color channels, which mucks with your ability to recover highlights with accurate color. To do that, you drop the shadows...you bury more detail in the READ NOISE.

This is where your Photographic DR is unhelpful. Your Photographic DR tells you nothing about the literal, physical capabilities of the hardware. Engineering DR, on the other hand, tells you where that read noise floor is, and how it differs from camera to camera. The 5D III has 33.1e- worth of read noise. The 5D II had 27.8e- RN, the 7D has 8.6e- RN. The D800 has 3e- RN. The difference between the 5D III and 5D II is significant...it's 5.3e-. That is more than the TOTAL read noise of the D800! :P I'd happily take 5.3e- RN in Canon's next DSLR. The only reason the 5D III is better than the 5D II in general, and particularly at high ISO, is they bumped Q.E. up from 33% to 49%...THAT is significant, however they castrated themselves at ISO 100 with the huge increase in read noise.

If Canon could release a camera with 5e- RN at ISO 100, and the same FWC as the 5D III, it would have 82.6dB of dynamic range. That comes out to over 13.7 stops of dynamic range. That would solve a LOT of their low ISO IQ problems. However, given Canon's trend...I fully expect RN at low ISO to INCREASE. The 7D had 8.6e-. The 70D has 13.5e- (and with smaller pixels to boot!) The 5D II had 27.8e-, the 5D III has 33.1e-. The 1D IV had 16.6e-, the 1D X has a whopping 38.2e- RN!!!!! (That is a two-fold increase in read noise over the 1D IV...if they had kept the 16.6e- RN with the 1D X, they could have had 12.5 stops of DR.) Canon's current trend demonstrates increases in read noise in each new camera model from the previous generation. I honestly don't know how or why they do that...but, it's the current trend. Maybe the 7D II will change that...but I expect it to end up with something like 15e- RN...  ???

My problem with Canon's sensors is a hardware one. I'm forced to make tradeoffs in my exposures, and sometimes I cannot counteract those tradeoffs with things like GND filters. I know how to expose. Of course I do. I know how to bracket and do HDR. IMO, HDR, sky replacement, tonemapping, manual blending, etc. shouldn't be necessary unless you have a truly extreme situation. I don't want to lift shadows to the point where they are midtones. I do, however, want the ability to tweak shadows in a minute or two, and not worry about revealing banding or blotchy color noise or having to increase contrast too much and block up shadows or worse, resort to much more time-costly solutions, so solve the shadow falloff and banding problem. Shadows should remain shadows...but they shouldn't look ugly.

Quote
So...when it comes to large size images...either something like a 1920x1200 size published online (which I've done a few times for 1x.com...they have a very large format presentation), or larger prints (not sure where the cutoff is, I usually print 13x19), then yes. I HONESTLY do believe that the 5D III suffers from it's shadow noise.

I print a lot at 16x20/24. My albums that I show to family and friends have sleeves for Epson 17x22 sheets so I don't have to cut rolls or trim while filling those. I don't struggle at those sizes...or even larger when I have occasion to print larger. I can literally think of two shots where I did not have a frame with sufficient shadow exposure and was bummed about the noise/tonality/detail in the deep shadows. Of the two, other people have only noticed one.

It's entirely possible I like to shoot scenes with more dynamic range. It's also entirely possible my standards are higher than yours (that's not an insult, people have different standards). Regardless, the shadow noise on Canon cameras requires extra work to eliminate banding, color blotchiness, etc. I'm tired of having to spend extra time fixing things that aren't there on competitor's products. With astrophotography, my time to spend processing is greatly diminished as it is...I have no option but to spend time processing astro images, and the more skilled I get at it, the more advanced my imaging (soon here I'll be moving to a mono camera with color filters, in which case my workload will triple or quadruple, and if I go with both LRGB and NB imaging simultaneously, my workload could compound eight fold...the final results should be FAR superior to what I can do now with a DSLR, but it will require all my time.)

At this point, all I can say is I REALLY hope the 7D II has something Canon's been hiding, like Don says...otherwise I think my loss of confidence in Canon to do anything about their sensor IQ is going to be rather permanent. And, as I said before...that sucks. I don't want to have to buy two different brands, replicate lenses across brands, etc. It's far more cost effective to have a single brand, one set of lenses, and be able to reuse those lenses across bodies. That's why people pick a brand and stick with it in the first place.

Jon...Neuro has a sizable lead in the CR rumors geek "posting" category, but you've got everybody including Neuro beat in the "total words written" category here on CR!!   ;) ;D

a sign of passion...


3
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 30, 2014, 06:29:13 PM »
Shot some women's volleyball yesterday...tough sport to shoot because the net/players always seem to be in the way, and they tend to move quickly and unexpectedly.   But also a fun sport to watch.

1dx and 300 2.8IS
f2.8
1/800th
ISO5000

Nice one Northstar :)

thanks my friend!

4
I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.
same situation...except I'm looking at an Ostrich.  Which camera do I grab.

Doesn't matter, but you'd better be on the phone to the Guinness Book of World Records, the local news media, and the tabloids to report your flying ostrich!!!

lol...good one Neuro! ;D 

5
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 30, 2014, 02:34:31 PM »
Shot some women's volleyball yesterday...tough sport to shoot because the net/players always seem to be in the way, and they tend to move quickly and unexpectedly.   But also a fun sport to watch.

1dx and 300 2.8IS
f2.8
1/800th
ISO5000


6
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan, my friend...I'm laughing now, didn't you see the part where I said "too technical for me". :D  ;D

It's a hypothetical situation.   Which body should I grab?

OK I'll leave out the technical stuff for you:  75 m is too far away for a 300mm for good photos of anything smaller than an ostrich so my answer is grab neither and just enjoy looking at the eagle. But, if all you want is to publish a thumbnail on the web, it won't make much difference whatever you choose.

same situation...except I'm looking at an Ostrich.  Which camera do I grab.

7
Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:48:28 AM »
Tried it for a few weeks...then quit and went back to shutter. I shoot sports, I just couldn't get comfortable with it.

9
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan, my friend...I'm laughing now, didn't you see the part where I said "too technical for me". :D  ;D

It's a hypothetical situation.   Which body should I grab?


10
Animal Kingdom / Re: Alaskan Bald Eagles
« on: August 30, 2014, 07:10:10 AM »
A few bald eagle in flight shots from my Bald Eagles of Alaska photo tour.   Most were captured with my 300mm F2.8

I like these! 

11
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

12
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:08:34 PM »
I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year.

May I ask what was your rationale? I would never have gone from the 400 f/2.8L mrk I to II myself.

I did this with the 300mm f/2.8 L and while its nice in many ways - weight, handling, faster IS etc - it was really a luxury upgrade as IQ differences are so negligible that I doubt anyone who has not owned both would be able to spot the difference.

I don't regret my upgrade as I can easily afford it and splash a little extra on my hobby. But for a working tool I would not even have considered it.

That's just it.  It's going to be a working tool for me, and I could not handle the excess weight running around at football games and track meets anymore.  The was my first consideration.  The second was that I don't need my 300 anymore.  I want to use the 400 and 70-200 combo.  I had to crop too many times with a 300 lens on FF.  Those two things coupled together made the price worth it to me.

As for Northstar's question, I absolutely considered the 200-400 lens.  However, many of my venues require f/2.8 to keep the ISO down low enough (some places just to get to 5000) so I didn't purchase that.  I do agree, however, for daytime/sufficient light, it could potentially eliminate even using a 2nd camera and shorter lens if you can get back away from the end zone and can shoot at 200.  That would be an excellent point.  But there are just too many night games/events for me right now.

Again, thanks everyone for the comments/contributions.  I will be able to produce photos the weekend of 9/6-9/7.


bdun...as you know...I totally understand the 2.8 need for sports photography!  i get it.  200-400 is an awesome range, but it's no good if it requires you to shoot at iso 12,800 or 16,000 ISO versus ISO 6400.

13
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:04:14 PM »
Did you notice faster/better AF on your 300 i to 300 ii upgrade?

No. I have read some claims of this - but none convincing. I shoot lots and lots of moving subjects with the 300mm and have exactly the same keeper rate as before. I take three and almost always at least one will be spot on.

If you look at the old reviews of the mrk.I lens they already considered the AF as being "lighting fast" etc. That's hyperbole, but it was - and is - impressively fast for all the glass that needs to move around.

If you use an extender it may however be different due to Canon's new extenders.

good to hear your opinion...thanks. 

14
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:06:48 PM »
Professional T20 cricket match between Surrey and Essex Eagles at the Kia Oval, London.  Essex's New Zealand international batsman Jesse Ryder is clean bowled.

the player/batter (whatever you call him  :D ) really "pops" in this picture...almost like 3D.

nice job!

15
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can't get my 1dx to catch focus fast as 7d
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:09:17 PM »
Many people think having the most advanced AF system in modern DSLRs is enough to ensure sharp shots. It still takes a lot of user experience and dexterity. Ask sports photographers, or those who shoot dancers in low light at ISO 12800 at 1/400!


so true...I shot a HS football game last week where i HAD to go to ISO 12,800 and above(even at 2.8 and 1/500th)....the 1DX AF was still spot on and i had no trouble at all acquiring focus. (quick to AF and not one instance of hunting)

example...ISO 16,000 at 2.8 and 1/500th.   and this shot is very heavily cropped to boot.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96