August 23, 2014, 09:58:02 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 ... 231
1
Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.
Nonsense - his trademark look involved strong contrast, black blacks: he could easily have dug into the shadows more than he did, and very intentionally chose not to.

He spent of time in the lab trying to improve what he could get out of film and did all sorts of dodging and burning and loved trying to push the tech of the day forward as much as he could.

2
Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.

Come back when you've read some of his work.

[instantly] I'm back.

3
it doesn't seem subtle to me

and how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating which goes deeper in the noise floor than some eyes would like?

For the nth time...DxO is not measuring photographic DR. They are measuring sensel SNR, running those values through a 'black box' formula, and predicting DR.

Actually I found out how. IR is measuring after raw conversion and NR has been applied!

And DxO is simply measuring it directly on the actual RAW no converter and any hidden difference applied under the hood.

Quote
Understand that direct observation always trumps theory and prediction. Always. Never the other way around. No matter how much math, effort, belief, or faith you put in a theory, nor how many so called 'experts' trust in the theory, direct observation always wins.

Yeah and DxO is more direct, they measure the actual RAW file without having to deal with potentially different and hidden NR and sharpening and so on in ACR and how those aspects might vary from how it treats files from different cameras and where mid-tone gray is chosen and so on. The IR method is subject to a lot more potentially hidden aspects and variability.

And for all that, the funny this is that you don't even dare quote their main finding: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores [of the 70D] are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better."

Quote
DxO measures sensel SNR and concludes that a 70D (for example) only has 11.6 stops DR. Someone photographs a step wedge and sees 13 stops between black and white. The question is not "how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating"? No, the question is "where did the engineering testing, model, or rating fail?"

And ironically enough it turns out that the DxO measurement didn't fail and that there is an explanation for the IR result, ACR applies hidden NR even with NR turned off, under the hood and IR used ACR and didn't test the actual RAW file itself.

4
Myths die hard, don't they.

The IR method has a lot more variables and they don't test RAW they test after conversion RAW with cooked in NR of various who knows what degrees (and that also explains how they manage to get this type of DR to actually measure higher than engineering DR measurements of the RAW file). So I don't particularly see how this method is better.

Anyway it's also convenient that you don't post this little part: "Like all recent Canon SLRs, the higher quality scores [of the 70D] are somewhat below average for a modern sensor. For example, the Nikon D7100 managed 10.1 f-stops at the highest quality level, almost 2 stops better."

5
"Photographic DR" would likely be less than DR measured this way, for a simple reason - we don't usually tolerate image detail that's near or at the noise floor.

DxO overstates DR for sensors with noise below their arbitrary threshold, and understates it for sensors with noise above their arbitrary threshold (especially in light of RAW conversion NR).

Perhaps more importantly, they're not measuring detail or steps in either case. If you photograph a step wedge with two cameras and one has slightly less noise in some of the otherwise pure black steps, DxO will count those as more DR! This is why when they "normalize" an image to 8 MP they report more DR.

It's silliness created by hardware nerds and not photographers. Someone needs to send DxO a few Ansel Adam's books.

Funny you mention Ansel Adams since I'd bet a lot of money that he'd be.... not on your side here.

6
I read the posts and I didn't see anything about clean HDMI out.  My thinking is that it should be a standard feature on the newer Canons.  At least it would give the user the ability to record at a higher quality if they want to do it.

clean HDMI out actually proved to do very little for the 5D3, most of the damage was done at a pre-compression stage it seems, only ML RAW which avoided whatever it is they do to mangle the image quality produced radically better image quality

7
The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

which is also DR

Except for the part where it's not.

Quote
and mostly importantly regardless of how you feel like defining terms...

I didn't define the terms. These are standard terms which were in use in the photographic industry long before I was born.

Quote
Quote
And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor  ::)
yeah whatever sure

Try processing the files yourself sometime. When you intelligently use the NR sliders the difference is nothing like the drama tests. There is a difference, Exmor is better, but the difference becomes a more subtle one.

it doesn't seem subtle to me

and how exactly is it that a bye the eye DR rating gives a higher score than an engineering rating which goes deeper in the noise floor than some eyes would like?

8
It would funny, after all these pages and all this talk, if they announce a 5D4, new Rebel, an 80D and a 1DX2 in a couple weeks and no 7D2.  ;D

9
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:54:59 PM »
So long as they don't gimp the buffer and the AF sensor is 5D3/1D series class and not 7D class (IMO the 7D sensor, yeah it had lots of points and speed but it was more like xxD precise and nothing like 1 series for most scenarios) then it should at least be quite the AF sports beast though.

10
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:43:17 PM »
Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....

So we're going to draw conclusions from an entirely different format???

The "huge difference" you are referring to in 5D3 vs. D8x0 online tests is not DR per se (the 5D3 clips to black about the same time as the D810) but latitude: the ability to push shadows without image destroying noise.

which is also DR

and mostly importantly regardless of how you feel like defining terms, what matters in the end

Quote
And it's a "huge difference" which can only be seen by turning all NR completely off for the Canon sensor  ::)

yeah whatever sure

11
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:40:30 PM »
Does make you wonder though, if these end up being the final specs, why didn't they bang out a 7D replacement right after the 70D was announced? Why did we have to wait (still waiting) for a 2fps bump from the previous model and what seems like the exact same sensor from the 70D? There is nothing groundbreaking here, which is prob the reason a lot of people are feeling a bit peeved. It's the lowest end of what we expected. The bare minimum. Still, it'll more than likely be an awesome camera for sports and wildlife.

But will it still be awesome in 5 years time??  ???

Maybe the JapaneseCanonfangirlsPost had it right:
"
Information from Japanese Canon fan girls, who are working @Canon:

Information about the successor of the 7D and the 5DIII are under total NDA. And total means total. There is just an small circle of engeneers and managers who know all of these Cameras. Others are just working on fragments of this Cameras to avoid leaks. If anyone says, he knows details on these products, he is not telling the truth.
In earlier times print jobs for tranportation and manuals were given to the printeries weeks before announcement. This time, there ist still just printing time reservated. No files have been sent to them (status from 08/12).


Canon is still thinking that they do not have to produce the best and most innovative products in the low and mid price segments. Sales figures show that the market analysts are right. Canon is still the best power seller on the market. And the analysts know that in future time, the market wil not grow and other brands are coming in. Sony will be very active, maybe an 5DIII and 1DX mirrorless competitor is coming in the near future.
The slow reaction on the D7100 and the still "no reaction" on the excellent D800/810 is well calculated. No need to hurry, Canon products are still sold well. There are not many persons switching to Nikon, because the majority of Canonians will not be able to spend a lot of money on new expensive lenses. The average Canon customer will be satisfied by new Canon products, even if other brands will produce superior products.


And the rumored prices of the 7D successor are just rumors. Some Canon fans in Japan think that there will be an hefty price increase on Canon products on coming products. Analysts say, that customers are willed to pay the increase. The increasing number of tests and scores, where Canon products are often just a few points /percents better than e.g. third party lenses, will prompt the average (and scores fixed) Canon fan to buy this "bettert product".

If you can see that in their pictures? I do not know."

Kind of sad if the once glorious Canon has sunken to such lines of thinking.

12
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:33:29 PM »
I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
Even for their regular tests there scenes and lighting have changed again and again.

Oh boy here we go...  :(

* The Imatest DR test is performed using a step chart. It has nothing to do with Imaging Resource's scene tests.

* "Normalizing" has nothing to do with photographic DR and does not change it in the least.

* You, I, or anyone else can personally verify Imatest results by simply looking at a transmission step wedge shot.

* DxO measures SNR which does NOT directly translate to photographic dynamic range.

* We cannot verify DxO's results because they are run through a 'black box' algorithm.

* DxO's results generally do not correspond to results obtained using a transmission step wedge. Put another way: you can see with your own two eyes that a 70D yields more DR then they claim, and that an Exmor sensor yields less.

Put another way the 1/3 stops difference between 70D and aps-c exmor sure doesn't match what ones sees with their own eyes when out taking photos or the huge difference between D810 and 5D3....

13
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 09:32:09 PM »
In the past, it was said this would have some special video features.  Seems like servo mode for video is something that the 70D already has, at least in part, and 1080p60 is certainly nothing close to "special" as it exists on earlier Canon compacts, so where are the special video features?

apparently the new ultra fast dual pixel video af mark ii (perhaps it will have built-in focusing aids and zebra and such too?)


seems a bit lame to leave out 4k though considering the product shelf life of the 7 series and the current competition

14
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:46:08 PM »
??? Where are you getting these numbers????

Imaging Resource tested the 70D using Imatest before they decided to cut costs by quoting DxO for DR measurements. The 70D has 13 stops of DR in RAW.

Naturally it's going to have more shadow noise then Exmor and therefore less latitude (ability to push the shadows up), though it's not that dramatic if you actually use the NR sliders in ACR.

I am deeply disappointed that Imaging Resource is abandoning Imatest for DxO. It leaves us without a reviewer who performs consistent, valid, photographic DR tests. (DPReview has basically dropped their "ACR best" testing and reports JPEG.) Future comments based on DxO SNR nonsense are going to be 10x what they are now.

I think the IR tests are the nonsense. Unless they were normalizing to 5MP or something.
Even for their regular tests there scenes and lighting have changed again and again.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Are These The EOS 7D Mark II Specifications?
« on: August 22, 2014, 08:25:00 PM »

There is nothing wrong with having more points.

For me, there is.  It makes the viewfinder too fussy for my tastes.

For me.

For me.

For me.

If you find different great.  You are not absolutely correct.

Broad church and all that.

If the 7D 2 has a dedicated AF processor like the 7D, then swell.  If the VF overlays can mimick the 19 point array then great.  We are all happy happy bunnies.

Neither you or I are correct or wrong.  This is why I prefer photography forums to gear forums.

The 7D had too low AF point density. They were all spaced far apart so for soccer you'd use one point and it would be harder to get it tracked perfectly, but then you'd add helpers but they be too far out, farther out than one 1 series or even the 5D2 and they'd be too grabby and prone to grab stuff too far out of the actual target.

The 7D2 if it has all these points shoul dhave much better AI Servo just from the density alone.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 231