August 01, 2014, 12:05:16 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 - David Hull

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
31
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 05:15:25 PM »
If you are shooting static subjects, how hard is it to bracket and merge to 32bit in photoshop and get all the DR in the world with even the worst camera.

And if you shoot moving targets, how often do you actually use iso 100 which is where this advantage actually exists? I at least virtually always use much higher ISO to freeze motion and well at high ISO it is actually Canon that got the best DR according to DXO.

I find it funny when I hear this too.

Even a landscape can have dynamics that prevent working around DR limitations by bracketing and merging.
If it's small and static, then it can be lit to fix it... unless it's not practical, you know, like outdoors.
So these workarounds aren't always viable either.
Then you shoot something else that you can shoot.  For most of us, that's just not a huge disaster.  The reality is that this whole DR argument is pretty much a non starter an any practical sense. 

As I said earlier, if it were the huge issue that people like yourself seem to think it is, nobody would buy the equipment but that isn't really what we see in the real world, now is it?

32
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 05:09:24 PM »
I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it. 

Pretty much what I said 1.5 years ago, and nothing has changed since then.

And 1.5 years from now, you'll still be saying the same thing, because nothing ever changes. On these kinds of forums, people see the tech and which tech is better than other tech, and nothing else, and because everything ultimately boils down to one competitive battle or another with humanity, there will always be a competitive battle.

It really isn't about the IQ or the Art. It's just about the fact that Tech A has more DR than Tech B, therefor religiously speaking, Tech A must be better. All that matters to Tech A fanboys is that "they won". That's it. Even if their arguments are pure inanity, even if they come off as the worlds largest tools ever to walk the face of the planet, they really don't care...because "they won". Somewhere along the line, Tech B will have more DR or vastly more megapixels or somesuch, and the Tech B fanboys will go at it on the Tech A forums stoking the fire over there about how now "they won". It'll be just as disgraceful then for the Tech B boys as it is now for the Tech A boys.

Meh. Competition. I really hate competition, especially when it isn't necessary nor useful. We aren't in a competitive sport...were artists (or at least, were supposed to be.) We should all be sharing our art, helping each other improve our art, and enjoying art. That's the entire point of having a camera in the first place, damn the technical specifications. That's why I think the Bird Photography thread in the image sharing forums is probably my favorite thread on this site...its never been anything but people sharing their art, complimenting others work, sharing ideas and techniques to get better shots, etc.
Yep...  Apple/PC, Chevy/Ford, Canon/Nikon .....


33
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 01:34:23 PM »
...
Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~2 stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images 4-5 stops in post. 
...
Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops.  Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

Dude, it's not just the extra DR but the rampant noise in the shadow details of Canon files. This all but makes the bottom stop or two useless.

To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.

So to mimic what has been said about the dynamic range of the 5D Mark II (and by extension at least that of the 5D Mark III) "usable DR of the camera is one or two stops lower than what is measured due to the inability to use the shadows."
So what.  What I always find so interesting about these discussions is that at the end of the day, based on all the examples that people tend to put up (the photo you are referencing most likely no different) this superior "state of the art" sensor technology with all this extensive DR advantages has done very little to advance the state of "ART" with regard to photography.  If it really produced the dramatic advances in Image Quality that the proponents always claim, it would have gained significant traction in the market place.  If IQ were really a significant problem with Canon equipment as the Sony/Nikon proponents like to conclude, nobody would buy Canon product -- yet countless thousands of photographers have been able to use it with tremendous success despite this corner case limitation.

I think what really frustrates the Nikon/Sony fan-club is that despite what really is a significant difference in measurable performance between the system implementations chosen by the two manufacturers, it really is mostly a corner case issue and hasn't really proven to affect the bottom line enough to force Canon to address it. 

The endless barrage of poorly executed example images just hasn't gained the traction they expected.  The reaction to most of these (and there have been a boat load of them over the years) has been "yea... but why do I care".  The best example of this is probably the oft quoted Fred Miranda review where the reviewer shot two pages of magnificent images in Yosemite and could not produce a shot where the DR of the camera was a limitation -- to do that he gad to shoot something way less compelling.  Both sides seem to be reasonably satisfied with their choices.  Do I wish I had the same low shadow noise that I could have with a Sony sensor probably yes, do I wish Canon would solve it -- probably yes.  Has it ever gotten in my way, no not really.

34
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 08, 2014, 11:32:45 AM »
If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.

Nah.... it's not in French.

35
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:41:45 PM »
Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
Just watch. ;)

Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~2 stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images 4-5 stops in post. 

The majority of Canon devotees, at least here on CR, seem to be fairly objective about the issue.  It's widely acknowledged that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than Nikon/Sony sensors.  The fact remains that people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors.  If low ISO DR is someone's only criterion for judging a camera's performance (and for a very tiny minority of people, that may be the case), they should choose something other than a Canon camera.  But for most people, what matters is the performance of the system as a whole (camera + lenses + flashes + accessories), and that's where Canon usually wins.   As Don Haines is fond of saying, who cares how many stops of dynamic range a blurry picture has?

Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops.  Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

But for those who would like to persist in this debate, I have found a relevant example showing how an extra two stops of DR can keep the sunlit outdoors from blowing out when shooting an indoor candlelit scene...
One of the better "synopsi" of the issue that I have seen in a while.

36
Reviews / Re: Why the DxO bashing?
« on: February 06, 2014, 08:27:56 PM »
In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?

For the most part, it is what people do with the DxO results, their interpretations of them and the conclusions they draw from them that are the problem.  The fundamental measurements are good but to try to roll that all into one single summary number is problematic.

37
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:31:24 PM »
He sounded somewhat believable until he started going on about the amazing high ISO performance. I mean yeah the 1DX high ISO is very good.... BUT so is the D4 that he has! The 1DX high ISO is no better at all than his D4 and the 5D3 high ISO is worse than the D4 high ISO (although the extra MP on the 5D3 helps a bit in some ways). And failed to mention one thing he'd bring over from Nikon other than the shutter feel.... the dynamic range difference at low ISO where the Nikon actually is much better. So then you start thinking about all the money dangling above his head again.

I do like Canon's UI a lot better myself though.
For what he does, the Low ISO DR difference might not be much of an issue.  He is a sports guy mostly, I think.

38
Canon General / Re: Why Scott Kelby Switched to Canon
« on: January 20, 2014, 11:22:42 PM »
This is shocking because Scott Kelby has always been a very strong proponent of the Nikon system. Now, why will someone who has touted the wide dynamic range in Nikon cameras suddenly switch to a system with inferior sensors?  ;D  ;D  ;D
He probably figured out as millions have, that whatever deficiencies the Canon sensor implementation may present, they just don't make much difference for the shots he is trying to get.

39
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 08:04:03 PM »
Perhaps they want to make sure everything works before the release it and there are no problems -- you know, things like AF that doesn't work right, AF that only works on one side of the image field, Oil spots etc.  Things like that.

Ouch !!!
Yea cheap shot, I know.  I would rather that they work extra hard to make sure it is well wrung out (whatever IT is) than release too soon -- not that I will probably be in the market for it (sounds expensive).

40
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:40:30 PM »
To paraphrase James Carville:  "It's the sensors stupid!"  If Canon was sporting a Sony sensor we are not having this conversation.  A 5DIII with a Sony A7 sensor for $2,8000 would be something really, really special.  Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors.  We can talk sames figures and long term strategy all day but Canon Cameras with Sony sensors would make it very, very hard for anybody else to compete
Except that a large share of the revenue garnered from sales of such a camera would have to pass through to Sony rather than remaining in the coffers of Canon.
In technology there is almost always a "buy vs build" decision that has to be made.  You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors.  But unless you can show that this would lead to an overall increase in retained profits for Canon, you argument lacks substance.  It is more likely that Canon has determined that they can produce a "good enough" sensor in house, efficiently amortize the R&D costs across the entire corporation to design that sensor, and retain 100% of the revenue resulting from the sales.



" You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors."
I am advocating no such thing.  What I said was : "Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors."  I didn't come down on either side.  Canon trails Nikon and Sony in only one important category....sensors...Canons are not as good.....Like I said  "It's the sensors stupid!"   CLOSE THE GAP CANON!  as for what my engineering expertise is (Masters in Chemical Engineering) is not at all important.  I am speaking as a consumer.  Why I want is a Camera with a better sensor.  I like really, really , big prints.  The Sony A7R and the Nikon D800E are much better at doing that.  I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS
Actually that isn't true -- Canon needs a better implementation of their sensor, the sensor is pretty good.  If you look at the measurements from sites like Sensorgen the 5DIII sensor has something on the order of 15 stops of DR.  And really, the only place where Canon really lags is in low ISO read noise (due to their back end electronics not their sensors).

41
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 05:12:18 PM »
You people act like swapping out sensors is a simple measure like, "Oh, just go get a Sony sensor, slap it in the camera like we swap out batteries, and everything will be more better."  The fact is that the sensor is just a single part of a complex camera system and must be not only developed, but designed around.  Canon would not necessarily be better off by simply going the Nikon route of buying other sensors. 

It is readily apparent that most of you have no experience with actual engineering, design and support of complex electronic systems.  It doesn't happen overnight.  One person had it right...what is selling and fielding today was begun on napkins several years ago.  All along the way, decisions are made and technology is set to produce an end product.

Canon has what it has today.  It either works for you or it doesn't.  The whole conspiracy industry on why they don't meet peoples' expectations is rather amusing.
Well put IMO.  I have often wondered just how easy it would be for Canon to drop the Sony sensor in there.  Is the electrical interface the same between the Sony sensor and the DiGiCV (or which ever)?  It seems that the Sony sensor does ADC on chip with one HS output to the Bionz DSP (me guessing).  The Canon uses multiple ADC's external to the actual sensor so the DiGiC must accommodate this sort of interface.  OTOH, they have mated up DiGiC's to sony sensors before (G11 I think).

42
Canon General / Re: What is the problem with Canon
« on: January 09, 2014, 09:31:39 AM »
Perhaps they want to make sure everything works before the release it and there are no problems -- you know, things like AF that doesn't work right, AF that only works on one side of the image field, Oil spots etc.  Things like that.

43
Lenses / Re: Canon 24-105 vs canon 24-70 ii
« on: December 26, 2013, 12:44:05 AM »
I have both and the 24-105 is the one I use the most.  That extra reach comes in handy sometimes.

44
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:20:59 PM »
Yeah, it only undercuts the Canon because DxO still has the 24-105 costing 1250, which is far above its current street price.  It may be a slightly better than Canon's 24-105, but with the Canon version selling at 600-700, the Sigma isn't quite the bargain as when the Canon sold at 1250.

Canon's MSRP for the lens is $1149.
Similarly, does anyone pay $3500 for a 5DIII?  I didn't but that is still the MSRP and you can probably find a store that will sell one to you for that if you want -- heck they might even be willing to send a limo to pick you up and drive you down to the store :-).

Who cares? Even years ago before the price collapsed I didn't pay close to $1149 for it. You can get them new, for $750 EASILY now, EASILY and for $600 with just a bit of effort. Real world is what counts.

$1149 is nuts! Who pays that? Heck I got a new, from a major camera store, full US warranty, 24-70 f/4 IS for $125 LESS than that, so who on Earth would actually pay $1149 for the 24-105 these days?

45
Lenses / Re: DXOMark: Sigma 24-105 f/4 DG OS Reviewed
« on: December 19, 2013, 01:15:40 PM »
A Sigma lens has a reverse engineered EF mount, a long history of AF problems, quality variations pr. copy, numerous examples of poor service etc. etc. To hope for any chunk of the Canon L-lens customer base, they have to be both better and cheaper and they have to be that over time. If they are consistently as good as Canon over time, meaning years, they can move closer to the prices Canon can charge. The only non-Canon brand that can charge as high or even higher prices than Canon is Zeiss. Because they have proved over time that they are consistently delivering absolute top class products in every department. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and the rest have a loooong way to go before they are in the vicinity of such a position.

I have the Sigma 35/1.4. I am very happy with it, but I am a long way from joining the Sigma fan club ;)

Do you have the USB dock that allows you to fine tune the focusing of the lens and upgrade the lens's firmware?
Do any Canon lenses have such a capability?
1.  Have you ever needed such a capability?
2.  The latest Canon lenses DO have this capability but they do it through the camera body, so you don't need to buy a separate USB gizmo to do it -- Just an expensive Camera body.  The last time I updated my 5DIII there was a lens FW update option in the menu.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13