April 18, 2014, 10:38:19 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 - awinphoto

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 130
1696
I just checked my 7D... long exposure NR is set to OFF.... still no noise

I'm glad you don't see noise in your shots in your applications, but it doesn't mean it's not there.  Noise is present in every image, but the amount obviously varies, as does the impact, and the latter is certainly dependent on the application (cropping, on-screen viewing, small prints, large prints, pixel peeping, etc.).

Long exposure noise is different than high ISO noise, in that the former is reproducible for a given exposure time and sensor temperature, whereas the latter is random.  Thus, long exposures can have NR applied quite effectively in-camera (the computation is very simple, literally just subtracting the e- recorded at each photosite in the dark frame from the same photosite in the image).  NR for high ISO is much more computationally intensive, and a computer will do that better than the on-board chipset.  Also, post-processing NR for long exposures is not the same as NR for ISO noise.  Unless you plan ahead and shoot a dark frame, you can't do long exposure NR in post.  Many astrophotographers keep libraries of dark frames at various exposure times and temperature conditions and apply those in post, because it speeds up the image capture (i.e. you can just take a set of 30 s exposures abck to back, instead of the in-camera process of 30 s exposure followed by a 30 s dark frame).

I will say I haven't attempted astrophotography in almost 6-7 years (and even with that I shot with my medium format camera)... I guess I suppose having the the camera on bulb for a few minutes at a time if not longer with humidity and cold temperatures (situations which digital cameras struggle and have to work harder) then noise would be visible... I'm lucky enough to be in a dry climate with warm summer nights so I wouldn't have the same situation humidity wise as if I was sea level at lets say san fran or the midwest... (I had to do a shoot in chicago in which the humidity was so high (99%) my 30D at the time quit working until i got it in an air conditioned room to cool down and dry out. 

Most of my long exposure stuff is for things like fireworks/lightning and high end architecture at twinight and usually (with digital) I dont get exposures longer than 30 seconds and typically noise at low iso is no problem for what I use it for.  (film with reciprocity my long exposures get a heck of a lot longer to make up for it)

1697
shorter exposure, less noise.  You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise. 

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

With the C.Fn for long exposure NR set to Auto, dark frame subtraction is applied automatically to exposures of 1 second or longer, "...if noise typical of a long exposure is detected," (quote from the 7D manual, p. 208).  So I guess Canon doesn't think long exposure noise is a moot point...

Just to be clear, it's CF 2, setting 1, it is set to off.  This is just not that big of a deal.  Personally I dont really trust in camera NR due to smearing that was famous with the 5d II so I usually turn NR to off or low if i have the option to do NR in post if needed.

1698
shorter exposure, less noise.  You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise. 

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

With the C.Fn for long exposure NR set to Auto, dark frame subtraction is applied automatically to exposures of 1 second or longer, "...if noise typical of a long exposure is detected," (quote from the 7D manual, p. 208).  So I guess Canon doesn't think long exposure noise is a moot point...

I just checked my 7D... long exposure NR is set to OFF.... still no noise

1699
shorter exposure, less noise.  You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise. 

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... however, for example, this last 4th of july, I shot with my 7D in a scenic area overlooking a casino that launches fireworks every year, with my 70-200 on a locked down tripod... ISO 100 with 8-30 second exposures... No noise... I would have to wait til this evening to upload 100% clips of the shot, they are on another computer, but I can upload an overall (combined shots with a base shot plus a handful of fireworks blended in... The base shot was 10 seconds of the building.)  Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore... 

1700
The built in spot meter is pretty effective once you learn how to use it.

Quote
Also Auto ISO, it is a pain to get that sucker to over expose when you want it to, it will tend to try to underexpose it, so by having that external meter, you can set it to full manual everything and ensure proper exposure.

Auto ISO is worthless. Should have mentioned that earlier.

The spot meter is ok for people who understand what the reflective spot meter is doing.... For someone who doesn't can easily under expose or over expose depending on the situation... The spot meter is still not as accurate in overall readings and effectiveness than an incident meter.  Reflective meters measures 18% gray and reflect only what it sees reflected whereas incident meters read the actual quantity/quality of light entering a scene, hence more accurate overall.  Sekonic just had a really interesting webinar regarding metering systems with cameras spot meters and sekonics incident meters. 

1701
I do think I didn't have the shutter slow enough. It just shocked me to see that much noise.




Yes, high ISO noise is not too pleasant... however the test does show characteristics of the noise vs other cameras... 5d, being a bigger sensor, only besting the 7D by 1 stop.  I understand we want to limit noise but then again we also have to understand how far we've come... "back in the day" with film, ISO 1000 was pretty much unprintable bigger than 5x7 and even with that, it was a grainy mess... (Keep in mind that was with over 40-50 year technology and development of film, that was the best they can do for high ISO film)  It was a nice special effect but that was all it was, a special effect.  Now the same film probably has ISO 6400 characteristics on the 7D.  When looking at that perspective, I find shots very usable up to ISO 2000.. maybe 3200 if I like a shot and want to take the time to do the appropriate post.  As others said, High ISO requires perfect exposure.  To be honest, as your school will tell you when you go there, you NEED to use a separate light meter to meter the scene appropriately.  Also Auto ISO, it is a pain to get that sucker to over expose when you want it to, it will tend to try to underexpose it, so by having that external meter, you can set it to full manual everything and ensure proper exposure. 

1702
It was better in every way and I had no noticed any lens distortion during my testing. It wasn't until I was in a more linear environment (my house) that I noticed it. However, I paid a lot less for the 17-40mm than the I would have for the 17-55mm. I paid $600 for it which is about half the price. It's ridiculous to say I'm foolish for not paying twice the price that did not compete. The aperture is not something I tested with the lens when I compared the two, I was in a controlled lighting environment. On top of that, I already own a f/1.4 50mm which I mentioned several pages ago. The 2.8 is enough for indoors for me. No need to act condescending and rude about it, dude.

As for your other suggestions, they are very good and I'll consider trying them. I wish I could afford TS lenses, but that's for later on.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse.  Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there.  Shooting parallel will help diminish the distortion however if you are wanting no distortion, post production will be a must.  Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold.  I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static.  Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe.  Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash).  The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light. 

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it.  By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots.  Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras.  Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors. 

1703
Regarding high ISO, check out http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_7D/noise_JPEG.shtml

This has a nice high ISO comparisons between the 7D, 5D mark II, 50D, Nikon 300Ds...  It is what it is..

1704
I thought you said you tested the 17-40 and already had the lens in question and found it superior than the 17-55 in "every way"?  F4, for most indoor environments was never claimed to be the best of both worlds... In most indoor environments, F2.8 is ONLY 1 stop more light and may not even be enough.  You can pick up cheap primes of 50mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4, etc (Even those would have incredibly shallow DOF and need a tripod to shoot with a lower F stop to get more DOF)  Low light situations is a constant battle... you can always get a faster lens but faster lenses have smaller DOF and that can hurt shots as well.  Then it's either raise ISO or get more light, hence strobes or flash... those would be more suited for indoors.  That being said, it appears that you are shooting handhold, am I correct?  For those macro shots which tend to lose light as is due to lighting environments, you almost need to use a tripod.  Using a tripod will allow you to knock down the ISO, longer more stable shots, sharper images, etc...  You can also get a ring light that goes around the lens to add more light in those macro settings.   In the forest you can get a neutral density filter, and lengthen the exposure, lower ISO and get a better shot overall.  I dont know if the grocery store will allow a tripod in their store unless you give them a few photos, but that's the route i'd go in.  Also bring a gray card with you to run a quick white balance in commercial buildings... florescent lights are nasty to work with.  In this Ultrawide area of lenses, distortion will be a fact of life, but it will just vary depending on your lens and camera.  The only way to really avoid distortion is TS lenses. 

1705
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: August 01, 2011, 10:18:18 AM »
I'm not really swayed by a liability argument, and I'm not swayed by a "it has to be perfect or else it can't be used' argument either.  I think Canon just wants to save money on a feature that could easily just be disabled so it is no problem for folks who won't use it.  They were apparently making big strides from the EOS 5 to the EOS 3, and with some years of development I wonder if it could have gone further (and perhaps it has, in Canon's labs).  Really, if it is a problem to use it in AI Servo, I think it would be fairly simple to allow a custom function to have it enabled or disabled in that mode.

Fair enough, but by liability, i'm getting at it could be a bad PR hence liability in regards to corporate image and so on and so forth.  It has to be nearly perfect because, lets face it, on the film cameras, the highest most pro's were willing to print on 35mm film was 8x10.  11x14 if using ISO 100 film or under because of grain and the picture really started falling apart and clients wouldn't buy it.  Pro's knew if they really wanted 11x14 or bigger, medium format was a must.  Focus on an 8x10 has to be good, but focus on a 11x14 or even 16x20 which the 5d mark II can pump out natively without interpolation (almost) ANY mistake in focus will be magnified let alone those pixel peepers who would tear apart the focusing system on the internet.  You remember all the noise when the 7D first came out with the 19pt focus system... people complaining how it wasn't as good as advertised on fast action... Those complaints quietly died away but to come out with this system which undoubtedly would be dubbed as Canon's best/fastest/most accurate/throw-in-adjective AF Ever, they would have to get it perfect on the flagships in order to keep good PR... Let anyone forget what happened to what was it, the 1d 3 focus system that was shakey and needed to be fixed post release.  That brought Canon bad PR and they dont want a repeat by hastily releasing this.

Kinda like apple who claims they wont release a product unless it's "perfect" or "done right", Canon wouldn't/shouldn't release this system until they know beyond a shadow of a doubt it is nearly perfect. 

1706
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: July 31, 2011, 08:00:28 PM »
Then again, where's our eye tracking?

Personally I don't see them releasing the eye control option again any time soon and I'll tell you why...

1.  The simplest reason is liability. People already are griping about the 45 pt af and more options such as eye controll can be a bigger backlash. The amount of calibration, testing... People moan that they need to do the microadjust let alone calibration... If it doesn't work perfect out of the box be prepared to read floods of forums... This af is horrible. Part b to this answer if professional photogs don't JUST look at the subject matter in the view finder, were looking at the scene, the background blur, the composition, looking for anything that would detract...  If a photog looks off subject consciously or unconsciously for a split second before clicking the shutter, you just lost your focus assuming you didn't lock ur focus. Even if it was user error, people will still slam canon and NO one will accept responsibility. In this saturation of pro photogs not seen by any other time history of Photography, it's a huge liability.

Second, with digital, with high mp, focus needs to be perfect. Any flaw will be magnified since people are pixel peeping more than ever, so unless it is perfect, forget it. Too much of a risk. At least with af points you can select 1 point and keep it on subject to eliminate equipment failure from the poss why your shot is OOF.

1707
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: July 29, 2011, 03:09:13 PM »
Yes, they can be used for both video and stills, but they are optimised for their main usage. A video sensor will be low res to avoid line skipping as an example ?

Video sensors are no different than stills sensors but video sensors need to support much higher read-out speeds (60-120 fps for video vs 10-12 fps for stills).
One way to cope with the data throughputs at such speeds is of course to have a lower resolution sensor or to do line skipping (or 'thinning', as I've seen it called).

This is something that technology will definitely solve in the future, though.
A hi-res sensor designed to do pixel-binning (or some other trick) instead of line skipping will avoid many of the aliasing issues that current DSLR sensors have for video.

Quote
The Reds, and the other dedicated video cameras have a video specialised sensor and I am claiming that they are more expensive due to this.

I disagree with that. 
Economies of scale surely play a role in sensor costs but the REDs are so expensive mostly for business/marketing reasons.
RED are establishing themselves as the Ferrari/Lamborghini in their market. 
So, you will never see low cost cameras from them.

Regarding economics and price, it kinda reminds me of a seminar I saw recently about professional photographers prices and perceived worth...  If 1 photographer charges more than another, all being equal, the customer will tend to think that there is a higher value or perception of the higher priced photographer.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they will chose the higher priced person or not, but the reputation or pecking order will be established accordingly... If someone undercuts on price, the customer will think it's a great price, but there has to be a REASON why they're cheaper, hence a compromise or lower quality or service.  That's kinda how camera prices work... The red may or may not cost the manufacturer the same to produce as canon does for the 1ds, however, they charge the higher price because they can... In fact, 10 years ago if Canon and Nikon wanted to put their flagships at $16000 or higher instead of 7000-8000, people wouldn't have thought anything of it and would be paying that for them.  Perhaps people wouldn't upgrade as often but you see where i'm getting that.  Heck it would make me cringe to think where then the 5d and 7d and xxd cameras would be priced then.  Maybe it would be better cause it would differentiate pros from non-pro's more and thin the heard a bit, but then other starting up photogs who are making great photos with xxd cameras or rebels wouldn't be able to get into the game as easily.   

1708
EOS Bodies / Re: No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]
« on: July 29, 2011, 01:31:56 PM »
...doesn't anyone's wish list include a GPS chip for geo-tagging photos or wi-fi or 3G/4G for transferring files?...

I have been waiting for a GPS for quite awhile now. Canon has included the feature in it's point and shoot line (the recent SX230), and I'd be surprised if it isn't found in the 5D mkIII or the new 1D.

To be honest as a working professional, I have never really needed to ever have GPS... I know where I shoot and dont have a need to know EXACTLY where I was... The few iphone photos I have taken have the GPS feature and Iphoto (which i use for my iphone stuff) records that data but I cant recall ever re-looking at the GPS map to find out where this or that photo was taken.  Built in wifi could be interesting if they can make it so it doesn't slow down the camera or make it hack-proof so some nerd down the corner can hack into my camera and take my photos. 

1709
Canon General / Re: Canon CPS Repair
« on: July 29, 2011, 10:24:29 AM »
Most my conversations with Canon CPS and Canon repair facilities are via email, however, the one time when I called in (using the CPS phone number), I had problems with my 7D's multi flash function and the person on the phone got a 7D on her end, went through all the settings with me over the phone so I was seeing pretty much as she was seeing and got it working together.  Usually if i had something I wasn't sure if needed repaired or called, I would email CPS and they would advise me what was best to expedite the situation.  Overall I've been pleased but I cant speak for regular call-ins or regular mail in repairs. 

1710
Canon General / Re: Canon CPS Repair
« on: July 28, 2011, 06:36:25 PM »
I have been pleased with my Canon CPS service and repairs whether it's the free clean and checks (Gold member) or warranty repairs.  I've never had them take more than a day from acceptance to shipping.  Kudo's on Canon for taking care of their CPS members.

Pages: 1 ... 112 113 [114] 115 116 ... 130