October 20, 2014, 09:02:51 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 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 262
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 08:32:20 PM »
This does not automatically happen in M or B! Do you not agree? I agree that your statement would be true for P, Av, Tv and the Green Rectangle... Your statement is a generalization. However, it cant be true for all the settings on my 5D3.

But if you shoot a RAW at ISO400 HTP mode at say 1/60th and f/2.8 and looked at the linear RAW file histogram it would look like an ISO200 HTP-off 1/125th and f/2.8 taken image and not an ISO200 HTP-off 1/60th and f/2.8 image.

Or more aptly, if you look at the blinky suggested metering line shown to you in M or B mode it would act just as you say it will for P, Av,Tv,etc.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 08:26:25 PM »
My problem with you [Michael] arose at the time of the "Half The Photons" discussion where, from your [Michael's] posts I got the impression that changing the ISO would somehow change the photons hitting the sensor. I'm sure you knew fully well that changing the ISO does not change the number of photons hitting the sensor then why the charade? What's the point of your expertise if you ultimately end up confusing people - Well you may very well say I'm a noob but there are a number of noobs on CR who log on only to look for some help?

Because is not just changing the camera back to ISO200. It keeps metering at ISO400 while changing the camera gain to ISO200. And if you meter at ISO400 you are getting less exposure than you would metering at ISO200 which the camera is actually working at. If anything, I think looking at it from his point of view seems less misleading. Effectively it is just an automatic and hidden EC -1 to the shutter speed, that is how you'd replicate it yourself in RAW without using the mode, with an automatic tone curve (applied in cam, and suggested to the RAW converter) making the JPGS and histograms look like EC0 with more highlights instead of a flat EC -1 across the board. How do you replicate ISO400 HTP in say Av mode for RAWs? You shoot ISO200 Av mode with EC -1.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 08:10:58 PM »
I felt cheated on learning that Canon publishes hypothetical MFT charts and does not actually test a sample lens.

Would you feel any less cheated if your shh copy didn't come close to their best of 50 that they used for the real test though?  ;) ;D

Although it would make f/2.8 vs f/8 performance clearer (since diffraction would be hurting f/8 performance real world) and some designs as I believe Leica once insinuated referring to Canon may be easy enough to make perform in a simulator with every lens carved and placed perfectly and yet an utter bear to produce on a real world manufacturing line where for some tricky designs 99.9% of lenses coming out may have nothing to do with the calculated charts at all. It might make them tune more for real world reasonably consistently produceable designs more??? But they probably do what they do anyway.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 08:09:51 PM »

Of course, headroom is needed to preserve the highlights. We agreed on the 'what' - your error concerned the 'how'.  My point was that HTP achieves the additional headroom by exposing at a one-stop lower ISO than is actually selected, not by reducing the exposure so that 'half the photons' hit the sensor as you repeatedly stated.

Isn't is basically just semantics?

And from a RAW RAW perspective what is using an ISO as if it were one ISO stop higher but exposing that ISO by one less stop? From that perspective it is collecting half the photons. If we try to do what HTP does ourselves without using it, which we can do because it is not a special mode, then what do we do? We keep using the same ISO we were just using and then make the shutter speed 1 stop quicker = the whole less photos collected scenario. What really is going is a simply a collecting less photons thing.

If you look at from the perspective of does ISO400 HTP collect any less photons (going by autometering) than ISO400, then no it doesn't it is just applying less gain, but then if it is applying less gain it is NOT really ISO400 any more is it so you might say the early way of looking at it is the more natural way?

Both perspectives can be said to be correct but I actually think Mike's seems a bit more the natural way to think about it although I suppose one can argue back and forth about what one considers natural.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 07:57:01 PM »
By all means, people should read that thread and observe Mikael 'Half The Photons' Residal's staunch defense of his explanation that the general mechanism of HTP is that the camera reduces by half the amount of light hitting the sensor, his consistent refusal to admit that his 'explanation' applies only at ISO 100, his avoidance of specific questions from several posters to describe how HTP works at any other ISO setting than 100, etc.  Note how here in this thread, he reposts TheSuede's correct description of how HTP works, which matches what others in the thread were saying, but not his own flawed and incorrect explanation.

Doesn't it sort of halve the collected photons though, depending upon how you go about talking about it? If you set ISO400 HTP it uses ISO200 but exposes as if you were using ISO400 so you are shooting ISO200 but as if you were ISO400 so the camera metering does toss away a stop of light compared to what it does when you shoot ISO200 as 200 instead of 200 as ISO400 HTP. So, using the proposed tone curve, it shifts the middle gray and everything else down a full stop so you have 1 stop more room for highlights.

If you compare ISO400 to ISO400 HTP they expose the same way and collect same # of photons but the one without HTP applies one stop more gain than the other and assumes a more typical tone curve will be applied and doesn't shift all of that down 1 stop. But looking at it from the true RAW level ISO400 HTP actual corresponds to ISO200 not ISO400....

It depends how you go about talking about it in detail. I don't know if talk about photon collection is really is the best way. I didn't read that other thread of much of this yet so I don't know went on.

I think it is simplest just to say that:

1. HTP isn't anything special and isn't a real new mode and it is nothing more than software and metering games.

2. You can do the exact same thing (for RAW shots) by using ISO stop lower in regular mode than what you set in HTP mode and then setting EC -1 to all your shots (or for M mode decide simply use the ISO you want in either case and then for the times you want the 'HTP' shots you decide to set shutter speed one stop faster so as to save one stop more highlights)*.

3. All HTP is is metering at the labelled stop but applying the gain of one stop less and, in cam (or default in RAW converters), applying a special tone curve that shifts most of the data down one stop and applies different tail and especially top end curves.

*And then you shift things around with the RAW settings to give it a curve a mid-tone point that works (using some built-in profiles you may run into the twisted profiles issue and if you are not skilled at moving sliders and setting TRCs and such it might be a bit trickier with some software to work it out as well than having the software give you automatic starting point under the hood though perhaps, although since most standard starting points and exposures are not fully ETTR you might not actually hit all that must problems at all and might even hit less).

That's all you had to say, Mikael.  Why did you feel in necessary instead to lead off by insulting my knowledge and intelligence?

I'm just guessing, but maybe he was just snapping after all the grief dumped on him in some other threads and stuck in fight fire with fire mode after all of that? Jrista and plenty others certainly insulted him by the bucket load (myself too in some of those threads  ;D  :'( :'( :'(). Some people who were rather incorrect about a lot of things had been dumping all sorts of insults over a few members for a long time, maybe he just got sick of it and now just snaps back at the slightest hint of anything? Maybe not the best way to go about it, but you can understand a bit where it comes from (plus it is interesting that none of those bashing him now ever got on the cases of everyone who started insulting him and others way back when and they were all fine with it all in that case, why, probably because the ones insulting and bashing in those cases tended to rarely ever treat Canon as anything less than a god.).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Canon may be expensive but...
« on: February 02, 2013, 07:18:31 PM »
Their 800mm lens isn't $18000.


And that is why Canon is discontinuing the current one for a Mark II soon....

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Philip Bloom reviews Canon 1DC
« on: February 02, 2013, 02:16:50 PM »
no zebras, etc, boo

Most people use external monitors/EVFs, of which many have zebra stripes, peaking, etc.

That really depends and if it was so universally true then would you hear so much complaining about it everywhere???

And since ML has been scared off from working on the 1DC and 1DX you may have the silly situation where a $12,000 1DC has less basic usability features than every single camera (other than the 1DX) below it (as well as all of the real video cams above it).

The new designed sensor in the 7D replacement is a big step up in image quality (low and high ISO range). The prototypes in the field also have a new processor in it.

I hope so. It's been a long time since they've done anything for low ISO and this would signal that they are back in the game and that the 5D4 and whatnot will have first rate sensors for low ISO again and that with the nicer Canon lenses and UI we can all forget about Nikon again and not need to make the switch.

It would also explain the long delay to the 7D2 and the high MP FF. They realize that their old process sensors have had their day and it's best to wait for the new process sensors at this point rather than have a 7D2 or 3D or whatnot need to be replaced in like just 12 months or less and the firestorm that would create.

(I refuse to say "+1" because it looks so nerdy).

??? doesn't the whole "+1" thing come from the sports world and ESPN??

I think it's likely there are at least two versions of a new crop sensor, and Canon are trying to decide which to go with.  I will state again, that I feel it needs to be 1.47x crop, or whatever will "barely" still work with crop lenses.  Birders and a few in the (outdoor) sports segment, are the target market for a highend crop sensor camera.  Yet, most of those are the very ones who really prefer a sensor larger than the crop format.  It's a catch 22.  The solution, abandon 1.6x as Canon's "only" crop format, and tweak its size a bit.  You get to have a decent MP count, while the photosites themselves are larger than say, Sony-Nikon's (every bit of photons help, with DR and SNR).  That, however, still doesn't get a 1Dx-derived AF sensor, into a tiny box.

Hmm I doubt that. Probably it will be APS-C. If by any chance it is not then 1.3x. Maybe 7D3 is 1.3x or maybe by then they are driving 7-8fps at FF and high density sensors.

Which customer will this make happy?


(and a few other areas)

Lenses / Re: 70-200f4 LIS USM 70-300 L IS USM
« on: January 29, 2013, 06:23:47 PM »
70-200 F4 IS USM is an excellent lens. I don't think extenders can be used on the 70-300 L making it not as versatile as the 70-200.

How is it less versatile when it effectively already has a built in 1.4x TC (plus you don't get stuck f/5.6 the entire way and it delivers better image quality 201-280mm and 50% faster AF than the f/4 IS + 1.4x TC)? The 2x doesn't look so great on the f/4 IS (and on some bodies you could use a kenko 1.4x TC with the 70-300L if you wanted to also push things).

The 70-200 f/4 IS does seem to AF much better with extension tubes on it though for macro work.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer
« on: January 29, 2013, 06:13:51 PM »

Canon MK II is a champ at f/2.8 resolution, look at that center frame f/2.8 performance on an optical bench! Even for MTF80 it is still near 0.8 while Nikon is down to under 0.65 and Tamron 0.55. The Mk II is capable of really driving high-density sensors super well wide open.

Of course it also shows, that as people say, a body with more MP + a lesser lens always outdoes a body with less MP but the most amazing lens when it comes to total detail. So D800 + either option captures more detail than 5D3+MkII (as expected). The D800 could use an even cheaper lens and still deliver the same total detail. Which again goes to show all the talk about high MP needing the best lenses to work well compared to lower MP sensors doesn't (and has never begun to) make sense (although it does make sense if the goal is to get every last bit of performance out of them, which a MkII seems it could do better than the other options).

But the MkII should still rock really nice micro-contrast center frame on a 7D at f/2.8 while the Tamron probably won't resolve the tiniest finest details quite as well.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer
« on: January 29, 2013, 03:19:46 PM »
Add the 14-24 mm and we will be in heaven... or will we? What is the point of having a 24 mm TS-E f/3.5 II, a 14-24 mm and the 24-70 II all in the same camera bag? Sometimes I believe we are just too gullible and blinded by gear lust!

well 14mm is a LOT wider than 24mm and T&S can be useful so I could certainly understand someone having a 14mm, a T&S and a 24-70.

Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II is a Peerless Performer
« on: January 28, 2013, 03:08:35 PM »
It is a very good lens no doubt. That said DxO can't be trusted when it comes to lenses (unless you also accept that the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best at f/2.8 200mm and the 2.8 IS II the worst of all the Canon 70-200s and that the 70-300L is worse at 300mm than the non-L which I think they might have even had better than the 300L prime and I think it was that the 16-35 II has the sharper corners wide open than stopped down, etc. etc.).

As good as this one is, I don't think it can quite match the 70-200 2.8 II if you are talking about to the corners at all focal lengths and maybe not even the 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-300L.

But it is very good, the best standard zoom ever. It truly rivals my 24 1.4 II at 24mm.

Pages: 1 ... 143 144 [145] 146 147 ... 262