September 15, 2014, 05:51:18 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 243
1

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.

Well other than nobody ever actually quantifying >20%, let alone the farcical 60%, I have never seen your images and the Romy images you keep harping on about consist of this one post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1280.msg258952#msg258952

If you do some searching you can find his 7D and 5D MkII comparison here http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/128151871 as everybody does he did the comparison in totally artificial conditions, especially considering he is a wild bird shooter, and how do you quantify >20% from that example?

Jrista's moon mages, after he was corrected on his methodology a large portion of his results were found faulty, and again, we are talking shooting conditions far from average, good mounts, Live View manual focus etc etc.

Show me your comparisons showing >20% crop camera advantage and I will find errors in your methodology too.

I tested these things in pursuit of the best wildlife camera;

The problem with the crop advantage argument back in the day was that the files fresh out of the 7D had to be tweaked, worked and processed to get that 20%. (I say 20% but it wasn't 20%, it didn't make it to that level)
So if you didn't want to PP every picture to is best, you didn't see the advantage. This was somewhat true with the 5D II and it was very true with the 1D series bodies.

A person with no PP skills saw little or no benefit from the 7D crop.

This was a subject that was kicked to death back in the day.

NOW, maybe with the 7D II it will have some decent processing power in body and we can have the debate again. Again I will buy one, test it against my 1D IV because that is what I am still using. If the 7D II is better I will switch. If not I will gift it to a relative and just laugh as everyone spouts the numbers out in the forum without ever testing one.

This image, created with an original 7D, has had minimal processing. A slight amount of NR slider and Sharpen slider in LR, a slight boost to clarity and vibrance...then a few minutes masking the the foreground out to apply heavy NR on the background. Other than that, it's basically as-is out of camera...critically sharp, high quality data:



This was shot with an EF 500mm f/4 L II lens on a tripod with a gimbal. I was sitting in a chair. Not a particularly unusual situation...I do pretty much the same thing out in the wild when photographing other birds and wildlife. Although my chair is usually a tree stump or log...or I'm simply standing. I found a subject, hit the focus button, grabbed a burst of 3-5 frames. Pick the best.

Not much to it. I rented the lens for a couple hundred bucks for a week. I honestly don't understand arguments about how difficult it is to make the most of your equipment. Honestly don't. If your a novice who's just getting started, sure...but if you are someone who actually seeks out better equipment to up your game...it's really not difficult.

+1
it's just not that hard to do

And it's ironic that it seems to be mostly those who rag on DRoners for being incompetent outside of the lab who seem to be the ones not able to get the most out of their equipment in the field even in a scenario where it should be pretty trivial to pull off, maybe not in every single case, but in a lot of cases. I mean if all you shoot is crows sitting in shadows while saving highlights at ISO6400 and up, it might be hard to see the reach advantage a lot, but.... or if you are using silly slow shutter speeds or don't bother to micr-focus adjust your lenses or something, but now these last two cases are just user error and extreme user error at that.

And I say this as someone who sold off my 7D and 5D2 for a 5D3, so it's not like I'm defending what I own. I own only the 5D3 at this point in time and I still say that the 7D gave me better reach, lab or real world and it is something I miss a bit, basically the only thing I miss about my 7D (although the fps was nice too, although only in some scenarios, in some it missed AF enough that the fps almost became the same as with the 5D3, in other cases the extra frames were a help, so that too a bit actually). If I had had the money at the time, I would've kept the 7D and I'd have used it for a lot of wildlife stuff since then.

I mean it's honestly trivial to use a 7D and a 5D3 and get hand-held snaps using AF where you clearly see quite noticeably more detail from the 7D shot when distance limited. And the 7D is probably the softest 18MP camera there is and yet it's still easy to make it pull more detail than a 5D2/5D3/1DX when distance limited.


2
Latest word is an unusual announcement time. Apparently it's 8AM EST Sept 15th and it won't be 23 minutes from now.

3


Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

It doesn't matter, and that is what you theoretical procrastinators don't get.

In Kieth's example with a Canon file those highlights are recoverable, if that was a Nikon file I do not believe they would have been. I don't profess to know why, and it normally takes you procrastinators a few years to catch up, but that is what I have found to be true, presumably Kieth and Sporgon have found that too.

it doesn't matter if you might not be doing what you think you are doing and that you might not be comparing equivalent highlights??? How do you know anything then?

4
Photokina's? Japan's? Amarillo Texas'? Just curious if anyone knows...

Canon announcements usually drop 12AM or 1AM EST.

5
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:25:54 PM »
jrista,

With the utmost respect, you are doing what you and most scientific types do repeatedly. They peruse numbers, equations and theories and come up with mathematical explanations of what will be observed. Subsequently their own observations don't quite match the predictions so alterations are made to the equations and lo and behold a new refined theory does more accurately express the observed result. In the mean time people who are not scientists lay out their observations in an unscientific way and are pilloried because their observations don't match the first set of equations, they might not express their observations in true scientific forms but they are still normally valid, particularly in the photography field because the end result is entirely observable.

Only problem here is the reality does match in this case. And it's pretty clear to see that it simply has to in this case  (other than possibly some little difference in differential rate at which R vs G vs B blows, but one word of warning there, don't get tricked by sRGB, that clips the red channel like mad and it's nothing to do with the CFA array).

Quote
This has happened several times, most notably with the crop camera pixel on target theorem. The "crop camera advantage" has come down from a nearly universally promoted and accepted 60% to even the staunchest proponents now claiming a more realistic 20% in ideal situations, even though actual images don't even support that much.

Says you and one other guy.
What about all the posts from Romy, myself, Jrista, wildlife photographers, etc. etc. that don't all align with a 20% under the most ideal scenario and barely there if ever at all in the real world.
Also to be fair, from time to time, along with the pixels per duck formula a few words would be said about of course there can be some adjustments in real world due to different AA filter strengths and resolving abilities of lenses and split-green CFAs, etc.

Quote
Now I process files for all kinds of photographers and I have observed exactly the same thing as Kieth and Sporgon, I don't understand the reason, I well understand linear capture "curves" and know DR is DR, not separated into highs and lows and all that, but I know for a fact that I have been unable to lower highlight detail in Nikon files that I could in Canon files. I understand and accept that Exmor sensors still have advantages in shadow details and total "DR", I also know, though can't explain why, Canon do have an advantage in highlight editability.

Yeah but what are you basing this on? What makes you so sure the highs were the same and that you are not just getting tricked by the different default mid-tone point placement and default metering placement for Nikon?

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:20:10 PM »
Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.
You completely misunderstand dynamic range.
Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?
Hmm, I'm honestly not sure what you mean...  ???

What I was trying to express is there is at last someone who is open to information as he might be mistaken about the benefits higher dr has - and proof, that the opposition to exmor and so on is based on wrong facts. Everybody else has to taken some position by now so further convincing might be useless.

As always, I'll also manage to sneak Magic Lantern into this post: Working with their raw histogram makes the whole thing much easier to understand as there are no highlights magically hidden anymore like in the Canon histogram which is made for jpeg files. It your camera plainly says what dr the scene and your sensor has, you have a better understanding when shadow noise or banding becomes a problem.

Ooh, I didn't know ML had a RAW histogram. I think that, along with the DR expansion options, is pretty much the clincher for me. I just downloaded it, am going to give it a try today.

Yeah you should. It has useful stuff for still like that too and for video.... I mean night and day! (so long as you can deal with RAW video) It's just mindblowingly better than what Canon firmware gets out of the 5D3. Like so totally much better it's hard to fathom. The Canon firmware doesn't remotely get the full power of the sensor for video out of the camera, not even close.

7
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:17:32 PM »
Canon's priority is DR at the top of the histogram (where it performs very well), and that suits me just fine.
You completely misunderstand dynamic range.

Is this what they call "field day" in English :-> ?

'Having a field day', yes, except everyone with the exception of jrista would have interpreted Keith Reeder's statement as 'photographic latitude at the top end of the dynamic range', and he is absolutely right. Look at his examples:

Only KR was completely wrong.
Any normal digital sensor is linear capture (there could be special types, but none of what people are using now is a special type).
Maybe the CFA filter might effect relative quickness to saturation between channels a bit, but other than a little but of that they all have the exact same highlight performance. They step up each channel in completely linear, exactly the same way. It's nothing at all like analog film.


8
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:12:46 PM »
"The switch from FD to EF in 1987 was clearly for the better."


Of course the switch to EF was the right decision, it didn't help "US" with thousands of dollars worth of gear though. Also you both seem to have missed my point, which was, Canon will do what they believe is best and give us the cameras we actually need, rather than profess to wanting, and they have been proven to get it right enough of the time to make the sales they do.

It kind of did help the Canon user though. And it was moving forward. It was not milking old product.

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Specifications Confirmed
« on: September 14, 2014, 10:08:43 PM »

The 5D IV is now the real milestone...that's the one to watch. If Canon misses on the sensor IQ front for the 5D IV.........

I don't agree, the 1Ds was a groundbreaking camera, as were the 1Ds MkII and 1Ds MkIII. I can easily see Canon putting it all into a 1Ds MkIV/1DXs, then let that trickle down to the 5D MkIV.

Given their sensor output up until now I see the real reason for the 1 series 1DX "amalgamation" was Canon's inability to make that mythical >35MP, they couldn't make a 1Ds MkIV two years ago, who knows if they can now. I certainly know there is a heavy built up demand from 1Ds MkIII users, myself included, to upgrade our equipment, personally I am more interested in a 1DX MkII (22MP >10fps) than most 1Ds MkIII users who want >35MP and 6 or so fps.

But I believe the truth is most long term 1Ds MkIII users are more interested in the upgrade for business reasons than pure IQ issues, sure more whatever will be nice, but most of us have made good enough livings with what we have and our output is not limited by IQ.
Do they have time to let stuff that others are putting out 5 years ago trickle down from a 1DXs at this point?
And $8000 for an exmor-like sensor from Canon when an adapted A7R is a small fraction? Granted you'd still need another body along with the A7R, but even then A7R+5D3 still costs way less than a 1DXs type camera. And if you went D810 alone, then way, wayyy less.
And they are gonna be soon creamed on 4k video front.
The 5D4 could easily have worse video than even the 5D3. It will probably take at least a year for ML to get RAW going on it, assuming they even allow ML on it so if it doesn't offer RAW built-in, it would be, out of box far worse than the 5D3 for video. It really must have a good 4k 10bit and 1080pRAW. Otherwise it will land with the biggest thud in the lower to mid-end motion picture world ever. Simply producing a 5D3 built-in video but not it does 1080p60 instead of 1080p30 forget it.


10
As an owner of the 7D, the specs just doesn't seem to make you want to buy this as soon as it comes out. The way I look at it, this camera represents the top of the crop line for Canon for then next 4 years --- 2018 -2019. It has no 4k, no RAW 1080p, no wifi and no sd uhs-ii.  Now don't get me wrong, Canon makes solid products and I know the 7D Mark II will be a solid product in terms of performance and reliability, but Canon is just playing this way too safe. They are heading to fall behind the competition.

Tethered shooting is very nice and Canon had the opportunity to cut the cord with this, but no such luck, no WIFI -- wild ..I guess they still want to sell 800 WIFI add-ons which is completely bonkers to purchase. Would be nice to have some 4k in this body and maybe Im pushing it a bit, but at a minimum throw in RAW 1080p, the magic lantern guys are whipping up Magic with RAW video, does canon do anything to integrate that no! just 1080p60 with the same washed out codec is a waste of time. I am 100% team canon but man, they don't even have a high MP body, another one clocking in at 20MP.

Coming out with this camera with SD UHS-I is the clearest indicator that canon will never adopt uhs-ii until 2019 -- sorry canon 5D MarkIV guys, this is a big sign of disappointment to come. I will remain with Canon for stills, but they offer zero for video. Since video is a non event, the new focusing system as awesome as it is will not be used by me since I wont use video Long story short, I held out for years hoping the world for the 7D2, but canon played it WAY timid.  I will just go full frame with a 6D. Canon, please stop stunting you products to protect your expensive Cinema Line by churning up tired features for the bottom end. 1080p60!!!!, wow how awesome...signing off.

Yeah it does seem silly to have left out 4k, now that it took this long for the 7D2 to arrive.
Quite a shame.
I'm even getting afraid that the 5D4 won't even offer 4k and 1080pRAW (which seems unthinkable, but maybe not to Canon).
If they don't everyone will just stick with 5D3+ML RAW or buy some non 7D2 non 5D4. Heck, SONY is coming out with a monster 4k videocam and it doesn't even cost more than the 1DC and yet it has gobs and gobs more features and a better sensor and everything under the sun. Canon will be squeezed out of their 1DC zone and have nothing new to entice anyone at the regular DSLR level.


11
I hope so. The userbase definitely needs to be re-assured that the next 1 and 5 series will bring sensors up to 2014 and not still be back in 2007. And it would also be nice to be assured the next 1 and 5 series will offer high quality 4k video (before people spend holiday money on something not Canon that does 4k video and use up too much of their money to get anything Canon in 2015).

The 7D2 provides less than zero assurance of such things.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:57:36 PM »


DOes anyone know what the extra switch around the joystick is?

Current thinking is a lever to rotate through AF point selection notes (auto, zone, single, etc.).

if that is true, bravo
Hi,
    No print button?? ha ha ha  ;D
    Look like bye bye to my 6D... just waiting for the pricing to confirm....

    Have a nice day.
There are no detents for actual locations.  This is more of an analog switch.  Can you say Servo AF?  That would be a nice addition.  I can't see where else they would do it.  Maybe those direction arrows, but I like this switch better.

Maybe it lets you toggle on instant DPAF tuning of phase AF  :D so that all one shot mode AF'ed shots (or if not all, maybe like 3997 out of 4000 are in perfect focus now with any lens).


13
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:56:16 PM »

Hi,
    No print button?? ha ha ha  ;D


Ah ha! So it IS the ground-breaking revolutionary change Canon spoke about two years ago regarding the upcoming 7D2.

14
EOS Bodies / Re: More Images of the Canon EOS 7D Mark II
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:53:31 PM »
Still not a word about buffer size...

The french magasine "Reponse Photo" say 231 RAW !!! But it could be a typo, as 7D was 25.  8)

Hmm probably 23 or 31 then?

15
PowerShot / Re: The New Canon PowerShot G7 X
« on: September 13, 2014, 09:49:07 PM »
Looks nice. I wonder exactly how large and the weight?
And how it will fair vs the Sony RX100, the current king of pocket cams and something to which Canon, before this at least, had nothing to answer with.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 243