October 24, 2014, 02:19:05 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] 4 5 ... 27
31

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

32
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.

33
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.

34
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.

35
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.

36
............
 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

37
A few shots from lunchtime on Friday. I noticed this chap in the garden pond.




BTW, must clean the sensor.

38
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.

39
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: August 09, 2014, 05:29:53 PM »
Cool pictures climber. I especially like the 3rd one.

+1.

but I like the second best  :)

40
I recently picked up 2x TC III for more reach with my 400mm f2.8 IS II. IQ drops 20-30%. FF body has larger pixel plus cropping will make it worst.

I'm not sure how you are measuring or quantifying your "IQ drops 20-30%" but if I was you I would be looking hard at what is wrong. I use a 2X TC III with a 300mm f2.8 IS II and I have used it with an equivalent 400. I'd like to see anyone reliably tell if a TC has been used or not.

20-30% is my own est. IQ drops. No scientific data.

With 1.4x TC III, IQ still good(not good as bare). The IQ drops dramatically with x2 TC III, especially in Ai servo.

IQ will drop when use with TC, on any lenses. I don't care how good the 300mm f2.8 IS II is. If you don't see  IQ drops on your 300 when use with 2x TC, then you might want to check your 300 as bare.

LOL well put  ;D

I'm quite happy with the quality of the 300 bare. and I'd agree there is a drop in IQ with both converters. I certainly wouldn't say it was anything like 20-30%. When I had the 7D I seldom used the 2x with the 300, but now I have the 1Dx its my favorite lens. I mean I use the 300 with 2x more than any other lens or combination. Maybe its something to do with the improved focusing on the latest cameras getting the best out of the lens and TC combination.

41
............
 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

42
Lenses / Re: Teleconverter crop factor conundrum
« on: August 09, 2014, 02:13:13 PM »
I'm considering buying a 1.4tc to go on my 400mm 5.6. I've often wondered, which is better in terms of IQ:

Using 400mm (no tc) on 60d?
Using 400mm on 5d3 and cropping?
Using 400mm on 5d3 with a 1.4tc?

These options all yield a similar focal length, but which would give a better overall result?

Cheers
Al

I'm fairly certain that you will get someone saying that one the options is definitely undoutabley unquestionably best. Then you will get some one telling you that another one is best. Guess what someone will then say they are both wrong and the only answer is the other option. You might even find they use 30 decimal places to prove that they know what they are talking about.

Try the options. You wont get a clear opinion until you have done that.

My opinion. Any one of them will produce pretty good results!

43
I recently picked up 2x TC III for more reach with my 400mm f2.8 IS II. IQ drops 20-30%. FF body has larger pixel plus cropping will make it worst.

I'm not sure how you are measuring or quantifying your "IQ drops 20-30%" but if I was you I would be looking hard at what is wrong. I use a 2X TC III with a 300mm f2.8 IS II and I have used it with an equivalent 400. I'd like to see anyone reliably tell if a TC has been used or not.

44
It's very interesting to see the effort you have gone to to make the comparison. Clearly you have made quite an effort.

When I got the 1Dx I had a 7D.  As a wildlife photographer I expected to keep the 7D2 as a backup. I very quickly realised it wasn't goingto get used. And as a back up I wanted the smaller camera, the 1Dx is heavy to lug aaround. so i sold the 7D and got a 5D3.  I have no regrets

so I'm in the "your milage may vary camp on this one". For me and my photography the so called crop factor is out weighed by the improved IQ at higher ISO  and when not cropping the images need less PP.

give me the 5D3 over the 7D any day.

45
Thanks  ???

I use the RAW file itself, without conversion.
I produce NDVI index from the differences between the Red to IR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalized_Difference_Vegetation_Index

so why do you state you use the same WB? I sense a disconnect between reality and forum world.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27