November 23, 2014, 11:05:38 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 - LetTheRightLensIn

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 268
You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

this is the most accurate summary IMO and why i give DXO a bit fat care factor of 0

Keep in mind he switched it to screen mode from print mode for some reason and that many users have independently measured ISO100 DR and gotten the same results. And that if you compare photos even using DPP and other maker's own custom software the DR differences in the numbers seem to be pretty apparent.

... Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better.  :-\

You know what is really silly?

Not believing your own eyes.

So you really believe that the full frame 5D Mk III has the same dynamic range as the original 2003 APS-C Digital Rebel (300D)?

Now that's silly, but, according to DxOMark they do:

5D Mk III - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.97
2003 Digital Rebel (300D) - DxOMark Maximum Dynamic Range (screen) - 10.93

What is silly is comparing them at screen level when one camera has 22.3MP and the other has 6MP. Look at the print comparison and it puts it 1 stop better than the 300D. (It also puts it only 1/2 stop better than 40D, which also has a lot less banding, so they are perhaps about the same usably, which seems to match what I see)

(granted it's IS also silly and a bit shokcing that Canon made the 5D3 barely better per photosite for maximum DR than even some of their older DSLRs and a tiny worse than any recent one, but it's true)

Canon had world beating SNR and low ISO and high ISO DR once upon a time and then they sat doing nothing, bragging about how they were infinitely far ahead and could just sit around. Now they are still up there for SNR and high ISO DR but have fallen miles behind for maximum DR and yeah they are basically where they were over half a decade ago (and even more if you go by per photosite).

5D3 is pretty awesome in most ways, no doubt, generally a great cam but the DR has disappointed me and I have to say I was quite shocked it wasn't a big step up from the 5D2 in that regard and even more shocked that it was actually worse, even if to a meaningless degree (and it would've be super awesome it if it had 28-30MP and still had 6fps and if it had video focus peaking (Canon simply NEEDS to add the latter in firmware)). If it had that I bet the price would be easily maintaining $3500 (at worst). I just hope they are able and care to fix up DR for the 5D4.

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 24, 2012, 03:38:46 PM »
The 70-300L is a great lens. But having had both lenses, there are a couple of notable compromises you make with the above trade. First, of course, is the variable aperture (but I made that a non-issue given what I use the lens for, and other lenses in my collection)- by 200mm you're at f/5 so it's 2/3 of a stop slower at the long end...also, I find it a weaker performer than the 70-200 at 70mm f/4.

But the benefits- extra 100mm on long end, and great at 300mm f/5.6!

It seems there is some copy variation. With my copy and most that I read about the 70-300L is actually sharper than people's 70-200 f/4 IS's at 70mm f/4 and 200mm f/5 but less sharp at 135mm. Look on too.

That said every once in a while I hear someone report what you do and it's happened just enough know that there must be something to it so either some 70-300L or some 70-200 f/4 IS are weaker than most at 70mm, not sure which side the blame falls on. Interestingly some who report as you do say the 70-300L is sharper at 135mm which is the opposite of most findings. I guess for most copies 70-200 f/4 is relatively better in the middle of the range and the 70-300L at the extreme but with some pairings it's reversed.

But my 70-300L at 70mm f/4 is easier sharper than my 70-200 f/4 IS had been (although with noticeably more CA (although less at 200mm)). Even my tamron 70-200 70-300 vc was a little bit sharper at 70mm f/4 (the one and only place it beat my 70-200 f/4 IS, everywhere else it lost for sure). I guess this hints at the variation perhaps being in the 70-200 f/4s?

The AF stinks (doesn't work at all) on the 70-300L with extension tubes for macros though, at least on non-f/8 AF bodies. Total mess on my 7D/5D2/5D3 while the 70-200 f/4 IS does fine with extension tubes and AF. Maybe on a 1 series prior to 1DX it would do OK with that. (Oddly AF on 5D3 at max mag and full extension tubes and macro lens maintains AF though, I'd have thought that would let in even less light or the same as 70-300L+a single extension).

Otherwise AF is very similar between them.

Lenses / Re: Which to keep? EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 4L IS USM
« on: July 24, 2012, 03:28:58 PM »
I may have to downsize some of my zoom lenses and the two that I may have to choose between are the EF 70-300 IS USM lens and the EF 70-200 f4L IS USM lens.

Now of course, the "L" is a better lens in every way, but I like having the little bit of extra reach of the 300mm. What do you guys think? If you could only keep one, which one would it be?


What about selling both and grabbing a 70-300L and perhaps even a bit of cash back in the pocket? If you can afford to keep the 70-200 f/4 IS L vs the 70-300 IS then it sounds like a $250-300 difference in your pocket in  the end wouldn't matter?

I use the point.   If you say F-4 you might get some Phantom readings

And if you say stuff like "A Ten" for f/10 well then you're just kinda hoggish.

How do you pronunce the aperture of a lens? E.g. if you were telling a friend that you're shooting with an f/1.4 lens, would you say: "F one point four", "F one four", or something else?

Mostly "F one point four" "F two point 8" "F four" "F eight" although when referring to a lens and not an f-stop alone then I do hear a lot of "grab me the 70-200 two eight" and such since it's faster and there are no regular normal lenses that are f/14, f/28 etc.

If you say "F one four" when talking about an aperture what does that mean? f/1.4? or f/14? and no, f/14 is not some crazy never used aperture, it's not that rare in macro and crops up in landscape photography at times.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 03:06:56 PM »
Does the EOS M camera have MFA?  That would be a big factor for me for using it as a backup.

Doesn't this thing finish up all AF with contrast detection?
There is no need or even way to give it MFA.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Canon EOS M System Announced
« on: July 23, 2012, 03:05:30 PM »
$200 seems "gougey", like Canon is saying "you have no choice, so pay up!"

Lol.  Ever buy a Canon-branded lens hood?!?

Oh yeah, Canon lens hoods are much worse!

Nonsense! A replacement hood for the 400 2.8 is only $588!

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

noise patterns = BAD ELECTRONICS, poor design, noisy power supply circuits casting their noise into the sensor signal.  Pretty much every Canon DSLR suffers from this to varying degrees.
Horizontal banding especially seems to be a result of a dirty power supply design.
Vertical banding is an inherent sensor readout strategy flaw, one that Sony Exmor design has vastly improved upon.

As for when this all happened.. not with the D800, but back with the D90 .. Nikon started to really lose pattern noise and gain DR.

If it were poor electronics design that would show up in SNR tests, but, it doesn't. The 5D Mk III outscores the D800 in that and almost every area except DxOMark tested DR.

No it would not. SNR test is carried out at middle gray where the signal is not affected so much by read noise.

As for the D90 two things occured, the D90 just happened to be one of the first Nikon cameras introduced after the opening of the 'unbiased' <chuckle> third party testing website from DxOMark and it happened to exceeded the 11 EV (screen) DR in DxOMark testing. So while a Canon 40D which was introduced before it actually has as good of dynamic range as the D90, that doesn't show up in the DxOMark scores because of DxOMarks inability to fully decode the CR2 file format.

Or maybe it just happened to be the first sensor using Exmor patents and column ADC architecture....  ::)

Resorting to conspiracy theories about secret hidden data troves doesn't help make us Canon users look any better.  :-\

anyway back on topic 5D2 vs 5D3 sensor

they are a little bit different:
5d3 is more color blind and can distinguish less colors than 5d2 (real world implications are very, very complex and i don't know anyone who has looked into the real world differences, all we know is the 5d3 measures the most color blind of any dslr made)

More information please?

go to DxO select the camera and then look at the detailed charts for the camera and look at metamerism index

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 22, 2012, 02:47:56 AM »

So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices?  If they were in trouble, they would.

they have!
i got one for $130 off list weeks ago and many people are finding them, even at Amazon on many recent days, for $130-$400 off the $3499.

EOS Bodies / Re: Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?
« on: July 22, 2012, 02:46:10 AM »
If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance.  I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors. 

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof?  They might have a slightly different "look", but better?  I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.   

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!

at low iso for high dynamic range scenes there is tons of proof, it's been given here and all over the net

at high iso it's not so much different


DPP does reveal more DR.

show us
and it makes the 5D3 reveal more than the 5D2?

I've never seen banding in DPP.

I have, although later versions control it a bit more.

Who would store data in this fashion? Evidently Canon. Why would they do that? Well, a couple years prior to the CR2 format being released, Nikon updated the NEF format and encrypted part of the data. Why would Nikon do that? When Nikon did there was outrage, and of course the encryption was quickly broken. So when Canon updated their CR2 format, they hid the data in more or less plain sight. No up roar over the data being encrypted, nobody hacking it a couple weeks after it was introduced.

And so then what about Nikon? SOme of their cams have banding to? SO have sensors from any digital camera ever made. All the banding was just secretly storing extra DR? There isn't even enough banding sections to cover the frame in a way to even propose what you propose. Total nonsense.

Where the key is I don't know. Why has nobody found one? Probably because they haven't looked.

People have looked through CR2 through and through.

As for the moon, thing watch the movie 'Contact' if you don't get the concept.

umm yeah

(and for the record that movie shows nothing whatsoever ever the moon landing conspiracy type stuff, at all)


If you are looking directly at the RAW data, and in fact there is additional data hidden in the RAW file how are you obtaining that data?
That's the whole point, you can't just look at the RAW data and see the data that Canon hid in it.

Because you can look through the whole file and not notice any areas with hidden data.

I also have to say why would canon magically hide away certain low order bits of information in some special block?? And why they then add fake noise at the low end and put fake data in the main section??? That would be so bizarre.

And why does Canon's own DPP not magically reveal more dynamic range than when using non-Canon converters? And why using say ACR for both a 5D2 and D800 do the files from D800 visibly show a lot more dynamic range if ACR is hooking into secret data for Canon?

Oh, and sensors that should have greater Dynamic Range like the 5D Mk III over the 5D Mk II have more read noise, and that read noise can't actually be data?

They secretly overlay magic data in a random gaussian distribution and you are supposed to be able to read that? And again talk about bizarre.

You don't notice the banding?

Consistent uniform 'noise' patterns point to data. 

When did I ever say that ADOBE Camera RAW was hooking into secret Canon data?

how come dpp doesn't reveal more DR than ACR then?
why does banding sometimes show in DPP too?
who would ever store data in that fashion? and for the random banding where is the hidden key in the file and why has nobody ever found one?
it's like saying you don't believe man ever landed on the moon, almost

If you don't think there is a noticable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor then maybe you could tell me if you notice a difference between these photos:

That's a back to back comparison with the 5D3 resized to 5D2 size. The 5D3 sensor has a significantly better AA filter and so produces sharper images.

I firmly believe that DPReview screwed those test shots up.  If you compare the 5DII to any camera on that DPR test, even Rebels, it is a lot less sharp.  I think they mis-focused the shots with the 5DII because my 5DII delivers tack sharp images.  Don't the me wrong, I'm not saying the 5DIII is not better, I don't own one, but the 5DII samples on DPR are not a fair comparison.

sharpness looks same to me for 5D2 and 5D3 (in RAW although bright, high contrast stuff in jpgs at low iso with right settings can be sharper on 5D3 in cam):

7D top then 5D2 then 5D3 then 7D again on bottom:
click to see full size

Pages: 1 ... 182 183 [184] 185 186 ... 268