September 01, 2014, 10:04:29 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 - Skulker

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 05:29:30 PM »


 For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography.


I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS.

I never said I'm unsatisfied with my kit. I am only unsatisfied with the 5D III.

OK I misunderstood, when you said you had been waiting for years and were frustrated I didn't realise that only applied to your new camera.


Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

These days it seems everyone needs someone else to blame if they are not happy. Or so it seems to this grumpy old man. And that's not restricted to photographers let alone Canon or Nikon users.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: Today at 05:55:32 AM »

Don Haines, I'm with you.  I'd much rather spend my hours having positive thoughts.  .......People can be very fickle.  Now I hear complaints that a Canon camera may not have WiFi.  When I was researching, everyone was cursing the 6D because it had this useless WiFi and GPS and the on-off switch was over on the left.  So, what more can I say. ;) Jack

I agree with Jack and Don. But some people do appear to want to be fickle. And here comes jrista   ;D

I agree that people find dumb little things to complain about with every camera. [got to agree with you on that J - 8) ] ....... For me, I've literally been waiting for Canon to really improve their IQ since I first got into photography. I'd researched and new all the technical tidbits before I got the 450D. [glad to hear you knew it all J, I was beginning to think perhaps you didn't know half as much as you think you know :-[ ]......... and that was when I really started hoping Canon would have competitive DR in the 5D never happened.[How do you think other people manage to take stunning images with the 5D iii? Do you think they don't know as much as you? Do you think they are satisfied with sub standard images and you just have MUCH higher standards? Do you think maybe they are just better at using the camera than you? ::) ]

I'm sorry if I'm venting frustrations, but I'm frustrated. I've been waiting for Canon to fix their noise problems for YEARS. Since, what, 2008? It's topped six and a half years now. How long does a guy have to wait, and keep his mouth shut? [when are you going to try keeping your mouth shut? :) :) :) ] .......  Being a guy with a pure Canon kit that probably tops $25,000 in total personal cost...that's very frustrating. ............. It just sucks. :P

I tell you what really sucks J. Someone who knew it all years ago spending $25,000 on kit that he is not happy with. I know one thing J, if I had been unhappy with a camera system for over 6 years firstly I would NOT have spent $25,000 on it secondly I would have have changed system a long time ago.

The reality of it is that Canon and Nikon both make superb cameras and lenses. Each has their strong points each has their weaknesses. And many people will have different opinions, criteria and priorities. At the point of buying you make a choice.

J - for someone who seems to like to think they know "all the technical tidbits" your posts are rather emotional rather than logical.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is Canon now two generations behind Nikon?
« on: August 31, 2014, 03:37:02 PM »
Ultimately, people vote with their wallets.  Sales figures and market share for the past few years are ample proof that while low ISO DR is of paramount importance to a small minority, a difference of a couple of stops on that one single metric doesn't have any meaningful impact on the buying decisions of the majority of photographers.

True, and exactly the reason why I shoot canon, even though I really wouldn't mind having a bit more DR sometimes

I don't think anyone would say no to more DR.  As I've said previously, there are occasions I've found DR limiting...but in the vast majority of those, two more stops would not have been enough. 

But as I've also stated, there's more to a sensor than just low ISO DR, and there's more to a camera than just the sensor, and there's much more to a photographic system than just the camera. 

Some people don't see it that way, which is fine for them.  Barbecues, awnings, diet coke boxes, it's just more banging away on the same monotone DRum.

If you listen to the monotonous droning you would think no one could take a decent photograph with a Canon, the only trouble for the drones is that plenty of people prove them wrong and misguided.

Photography Technique / Re: Is RAW worth it?
« on: August 30, 2014, 10:10:08 PM »
It all depends on how good a technical photographer you are. If you could shoot perfectly exposed Chromes back in the film days, you don't need raw.

only if you are happy with missing the advantages of raw. Many people like the extra flexibility. 

Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 30, 2014, 05:07:04 PM »
I would love to have the 400 as well as the 300. I have seen some great results from it and the MK11 id definitely lighter than the MK1. Hope you get on well with it. I wonder if I should have got the 400 so I will looking at your results.

and to take part in the hijack  ;D

I tend to turn off IS if I'm panning fast, stuff like close in birds in flight or planes, and more so with a TC. In that case I up the ISO. I know someone who swears by mode 3 IS. I do use it sometimes, for high shutter speed shots, but don't find it the be all and end all.

I expect IS was off for this shot, but I do know I left it on accidentally some of the time. But hey if I can't tell is it really that important? This was ISO 1000, 1/500 sec, F5.6, 300mm f2.8 MK11 with x2TC on the 1Dx. Its almost full frame and a bit softer than I'm happy with. But I think that was my panning speed not the IS.

Red Arrows by Tom W W, on Flickr

While you're ordering the 200-400 you might as well order the 1Dx. ::)


I was photographing the red arrows today

(BTW is you want to see this image at its best look on flickr, for some reason CR makes it look soft)

Red Arrows by Tom W W, on Flickr

I had a very tame osprey this morning - I was able to get within about 30 feet in my mobile blind - aka car :) :

Lovely shot there.

Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
« on: August 22, 2014, 12:11:23 PM »
I use the 70-200 with the 2X TC and have got good results with it.

I tend not to use it too often because I don't like the balance.

Here's one taken last weekend.

Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« on: August 19, 2014, 02:09:55 PM »
An Osprey from the weekend. A slow shutter speed to show the wing movement.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Who owns the photo?
« on: August 11, 2014, 06:42:06 PM »
The image was created in Indonesia.  Therefor Indonesian law would decide who owned the copyright originally,  if anyone did. Who it was transfered to later is another question.

Is it worth going to court to sort it out? Not a chance, Wikipedia are banking on it.

 I've long held the opinion that crop sensor cameras, like the 7D, do have value in certain circumstances. The most significant use case where a camera like the 7D really shows it's edge over full frame cameras is in reach-limited situations.


I'd like to prove my case


Both images were initially scaled to approximately 1/4 their original size (770x770 pixels, to be exact).

The 5D III image was then layered onto the 7D image, and upsampled in Photoshop by a scale factor of exactly 161.32359522807342533660887502944%.

While I agree with you that a 7D (or any so called crop sensor) can have advantages over a so called full frame sensor. I think you need to review your work if your objective is to reach a valid conclusion.

1) you start off with a strong opinion. (its better to have an open mind)
2) Then you try to "prove my point". (it might be better to try to test your opinion)
3) Then you do something that is going to be very detrimental to one of the images.

You may claim that you would have to upsample the 5D3 image to get the same size as the 7D. But you have already down sampled it - so you have lost detail in the 5D3 file.

To demonstrate I made a simple file in Photoshop. 770 pixies  ;D wide, copied it, scaled it to 481 wide, then upscaled it to 770 wide. Hardly by chance my file had two types of detail. A sharp line and a not so sharp line. The result can be seen below.

I think I have just proved that photoshop is better than photoshop.  >:(

Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of the 7D and think its a great camera. I also think there is a place for "crop sensors". I'm waiting for the 7D2, I don't think it will be for me, but I definitely see a crop sensor shaped hole in my kit.

and finally whats with 30 odd decimal places!

EDIT: Just in case anyone wonders  ;D  the down sampling and up sampling were done with default PS settings

You are correct. However, the image below was actually done a bit differently. In this case, both samples were downscaled to fit in the 770x770 pixel image...the 5D III image was not first downsampled then upsampled again.

Your right, certainly not as stark a difference as my first example. Maybe that one is invalid. This example, however, does show that the 7D is still picking up more subtle details and nuances of color. The differences are not stark, but they do exist. Also note, both of these images were denoised. They were both denoised to the point where they both exhibited about the same noise levels...where noise was pretty much not visible. Obviously, there was quite a bit less noise reduction applied to the 5D III image.. That actually costs the 7D a little bit of it's detail as well...but it is on a level playing field with  the 5D III as far as noise goes, so I still think it's a fair example.

That certainly shows much less of a difference. Have you corrected your original post? You shouldn't leave it with such an error.

Unfortunately as you aren't putting up the raw files, as so many have asked, we can't replicate your work and see if we get the same results. Unless I have missed the link to them.

On my monitor there is quite a color cast to the 5D3 images, but none on the 7D image.

Finally let me say although I have plenty of questions about your thoughts on the "crop factor" and how you have gone about proving your point. I have no issues with the quality of some of your photography and think the images you produce of the night sky are some of the best images seen on this site.  ;D

But you still haven't said so again "Whats with the 30 decimal places?"  ;D ;D

A few shots from lunchtime on Friday. I noticed this chap in the garden pond.

BTW, must clean the sensor.

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 09, 2014, 05:32:50 PM »
My image posts suddenly looks stamp size, whereas the Flikr-posts appear normal. Does anyone know why?

for me clicking on it opens it in a new window, full size

Nice image BTW. I'm drooling over a 100 f2.8 IS at the moment, I'm very tempted.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25