December 20, 2014, 11:24:23 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 2 [3] 4 5 ... 271
Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 02:08:49 PM »
What would be "game-changing" for me is something like:
* in-vf focus peaking and a evf you cannot tell from ovf
* raw and/or 4k video sub $2k
* open firmware that enables 3rd party addons
One of those is impossible and the other two are features I wouldn't even consider in my purchase decision.
You think an open firmware is impossible?
No, I think an EVF you cannot tell from an OVF is impossible.

Considering the history of technology and what has been deemed impossible, this is a rather courageous statement :-)

No, it's fundamental physics.  An EVF requires dual integration (one for the sensor, one for your eyes).  An OVF does not.

I agree here...I don't think it is possible for an EVF to perform well enough that you couldn't differentiate it from an OVF. Too many things that would push physics too far.

8k, stereo, HDR, 120fps, extreme wide gamut EVF might get close; not feasible now, but I'd imagine it will be in time

Anyway, in some ways even what can be done now (although hasn't yet) could make an EVF bring quite some pluses over an OVF for some types of shooting (one thing to keep in mind is that most stills are still taken as 2D not 3D and the 3D OVF can give one a rather different impression of what the 2D shoot will look like just due to that alone) although in other cases yeah I'm not sure it would cut it.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 06, 2014, 01:51:28 PM »
And it's interesting that some improvements for astro photography are awesome (and they are) but then if say some landscape (not that only landscape shooters can benefit) shooter is looking for a 3 stops improvement, that's just minor nonsense and it's all on the photographer, people have made great pics forever so why should they even care, it just says something about the photographer doesn't it.

If a competitor had a >20 stop sensor that eliminated GND filters and HDR, that would be a "game changer" and would warrant the endless discussion and hand wringing we see here.

As is there are a couple stops of difference, which can be useful at times, but which simply cannot replace the techniques landscape photographers have used for years and decades. jrista's own interior shot demo that was here a while back showed two things. One, the Sony had more shadow latitude and the shadows were of higher quality. Two, even the Sony could not be stretched to retain the highlights and at the same time yield shadow quality that would be acceptable for publication. With a paying client you would be bracketing on either camera.

1. an extra 2-3 stops over what Canon delivers now actually would make a big difference for a lot of the shots where it matters at all. It's exactly what you'd need to pull off many dappled forest scenes and such, even if it won't cover every single HDR shot.

2. those GNDs only work for a very, very few simple types of scenes. They are totally useless for most scenes including virtually any forest scene or any of the jrista interior type shots. They are good for the classic ground/horizon/air, water/horizon/air shots and not much else.

3. multi-shot HDR can work in more scenarios, but it doesn't work out that nicely when there is motion be it from water, a breeze or subject's own motion. It also tends to require slow tripod work (you can sometimes do hand-held, but it tends to leave at least some weird artifacts here and there that can be a beast to clean up; even if you can always avoid that somehow, it not too uncommonly will put the longest exposed frame into the danger zone for handshake motion blur) and more time in all cases. Sometimes when the light is changing fast that means you miss a lot of different potential takes on an area. Other times it might meaning annoying others you are with or yourself and cut down enjoyment of the wonderful view.

If you're into sports, the 7D II's AF and buffer make a real difference. If you're into astro, it's sensor characteristics apparently make a notable difference. If you're into landscapes...well...for all the words spilled on the Internet over DR and DxO I'm not sure it has ever actually resulted in a print that's observably better then another print. It's hard to even make the tripod/hand held argument when you can easily hand hold 2-3 frame brackets with no IS, and 5-7 with the latest IS lenses.

LOL how typical. Every single thing the Canon is best at makes a real difference, but anything it's not absolutely doesn't matter expect just barely at all in the only the most extreme scenarios. LOL. How typical.

Nevermind that such serious level of astro photography is even a thing carried out far more rarely by the average user than high HDR regular shooting at low ISO and that the improvement it brings over the previous model is arguably not even quite as noticeable as exmor vs canon for low ISO high DR. But of course since the 7D2 improves the astro bit it's a critical improvement and since they didn't fix the low ISO DR thing that's a minor thing barely relevant to anyone and even to those it is, it still isn't really relevant anyway. Nice.

Listen I've said the 7D2 buffer,fps, AF should make it a beast for that stuff. And the improvements over the prior model for astro look cool. But so would have an improvement for low ISO DR (although the 7D2 can maybe get away without a bit more easily than say a 5D4 could).


I am curious as to what Canon's management thinks of DxO and DR, if anything.
They seem to be trying to ignore it (witness Maesada's interview where he plays the clueless fool who has never heard of DxO or that Canon DSLR sensors are behind competition in any way).

And for the record I would love to see this improved. I just don't understand the obsession with it.
There's less difference today between the "weakest" sensor in an entry level, small format (m43, APS-C, FF) ILC and the best sensors in the most expensive small format ILCs then ever before. Yet some how we are spending more time talking about those differences, and people (not you specifically, nor jrista)

When it comes to low ISO DR the differences are actually greater in recent years than in years past, not lesser.

on the Internet are becoming more arrogant about the performance of "their" sensor. It gets annoying, which is why you see the push back you are complaining about.

Personally I saw the bashing 'pushback' start first and then after a long time of that many either stopped posting or starting pushing back at defenders of the sacred honor of Canon after getting sick of all the personal insults being tossed for years. I was a bit sad to see Roger even start heading down that line, even if more gently than many, by appearing to call out any photographer who had a need for exmor-like low ISO DR and coming awfully close to the old learn how to shoot you crappy photographer, but having nothing but praise for his own type who liked the dark current improvements.

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:16:57 PM »
What I won't do is head over to a forum dedicated to the other tech and say that its weaknesses mean it's a worse system just because it doesn't suit me personally.  Which oddly is what a number of people do here.

You are making a false assumption that most of those bringing up low ISO DR are Nikon/Sony/etc. users when most are actually long time Canon users. So there is no going over to the 'other' forum since they are posting in their own brand's forum to begin with.

And it's interesting that some improvements for astro photography are awesome (and they are) but then if say some landscape (not that only landscape shooters can benefit) shooter is looking for a 3 stops improvement, that's just minor nonsense and it's all on the photographer, people have made great pics forever so why should they even care, it just says something about the photographer doesn't it.

Well yeah how about we say the same and ask Roger to go back to shooting astro on D30 then? After all if he can't make due with shooting his pics on a D30 even though thousands of amazing pics have been taken with a D30 I guess that just says something about him and not the D30 right? Come on! Why doesn't he just use a pinhole camera for his work? People have made awesome pics with those right? If he can't then I guess that just really says a lot about him right?

Just sick of all the nonsense where people just put down anyone who dares want to push things forward regarding something that someone else doesn't need/do or regarding something their pet brand that they worship doesn't do the best.

Gotta love it, 14% better this and much better dark current that and it's a game changer (fine enough) but then if someone brings up 3 stops DR at low ISO it just says something bad about them, who could care about such nonsense as that.  ::)

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 05, 2014, 03:13:33 AM »
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on dynamic range and read noise.

Because that is what Canon has fallen way behind on.

In long exposure photography with digital cameras (not cooled scientific cameras), there are generally 3 factors that impact detecting faint signals:
1) noise from dark current
2) adequately digitizing the low end
3) pattern noise
4) in night sky photography: airglow (light from the night sky)
Note read noise and dynamic range are not factors.

True, but the average person doesn't do long exposure astro photography and thus a lot more comments on the DR and read noise.

So to detect faint signals and record the best detail in that faint signal, whether low light astro photo, or shadow detail in a very dark shadow, it is best to work at an iso that adequately digitizes that low end, and that is NOT at low iso, whether canon, nikon, sony, or whomever.  It has nothing to do with read noise.

I didn't think quantization noise came up since they didn't produce enough real data to matter yet.

  Do the same thing with Canon data and, surprise, the dynamic range can be increased more than a stop.  The Nikon methodology seems ugly to me from a science standpoint, but it produces amazing results in pleasing images and boosts dynamic range measurements that ignore that fact.  Do the same thing with canon and see similar amazing results.

You don't see similar amazing results at all. The details are just not there even if the noise is 'less'.

The internet is abuzz over dynamic range at low iso and canon's "poor" performance in that area.  Yes, canon remains low in this regard, but higher dynamic range at the high end where dynamic range is shrinking and thus more important for high iso photographers.

Yes, but:

1. not everyone is a high iso photographer/astro photographer only
2. Canon is not behind up there much so of course that is not what people will complain about

They key is one can make great photos with any system, and if one knows the weaknesses (and they ALL have weaknesses), then one can compensate for known weaknesses in real world imaging.

Of course, but the fact is that you can also get freedom to take a lot more types of shots and can be free to spend a heck of a lot less time slaving over post-processing for some types of shots with other systems.

A final point.  If the internet DR is everything poeple had a point about dynamic range being such a problem they (and DXO Mark) seem to think it is, there could never have been a decent image made with slide film and its 5 to 7 stops of DR.  That is obviously not true.  Modern DSLRs have impressive dynamic range and if one can't make a good image with 10 stops of DR, I'm sorry, but that is saying more about the photographer than the camera.

BS implication at the end there

And of course you can take a billion amazing shots with a Canon DSLR today and you could take a billion amazing shots with K64. But that doesn't mean that shooting with a D810 might not open you up to a ton of extra possibilities that might be tricky or impossible in some other cases. Maybe some people are interested in shooting that stuff too.

It says a lot about someone to call out those who care about that.

Roger Clark

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 04, 2014, 05:57:27 PM »

Respectfully disagree, Johan.  Canon isn't really losing folks to mirrorless nearly as much as they are losing folks to Sony sensors -- people are 'switching to mirrorless' just to get their hands on what they think will get them better IQ.


If they just go for some FF mirrorless with the same old sensors. Heck, I'd want that even far less than what they have out now. At least the ones now handle everything but the low ISO DR well. A mirrorless, slow AF FF with an old sensor would handle what well??

Unless of course it went far behind what we think of as mirrorless today. And it was basically like a current DSLR only with a super advanved EVF and keeping and even expanding all general fast action functions and abilities.

EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:52:35 PM »
What is a Rangefinder Mirrorless Camera?  That sounds pretty Retro, and limited production is not Canons thing, particularly in a falling market.
I'd be very happy with a FF mirrorless body that used existing lenses, but I'd just ignore one that needed new lenses.  Using a adaptor with my EF lenses would be out of consideration.

I have to ask, what's the point of the mirrorless camera if it used EF lenses? The 6D isn't that much bigger than the A7, and they could probably shave some size off the next one if they wanted to.

it makes it less expensive to drive high fps (of course first they need a way to get top AF in such a scenario)

or lets them go to some super EVF but otherwise as current type camera


EOS Bodies / Re: Petapixel: Canon Full Frame Mirrorless
« on: December 03, 2014, 04:50:58 PM »
But what about the mysterious slide they put up at a tradeshow a year or so ago where near the top pyramid it had a mystery spot where FF and EVF coincided on the pyramid?

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:36:27 PM »
Read noise is the worst kind of noise for astrophotography. Without it, we could get amazing results with really basic mounts, without guiding, no one would care what their mounts PE was. The 7D II improves some things...but it still has Canon's same old high read noise. Elimination of banding is certainly a plus, and reduction in dark current is still a plus, but RN is STILL their limiting factor.

Elsewhere you recommended the D810 and D5100.  The RN at ISO 1600 (often used for astro) for these cameras are:

D810 - 3.5
D5100 - 3.6
7DII - 2.8/2.4 (Sensorgen/Clarkvision)

So, don't you think you're being just a tad disingenuous?  You were recommending a cascade type sensor above with very short exposures.  Again, that equated to very high ISOs.  The 7DII is again better than the above two cameras at ISOs from 1,600 to 12,800 in this area, with higher QE as well.

The only area I can find where Canon is lagging is low ISO RN, not high ISO.  While I'd love it if they'd do better there (cleaner is always good), that's the least important place to have low read noise.
Checked out Sensorgen which has lot of statistics for every model.  Surprising rebels with 18mpx sensor,  are also good in terms of RN at iso 1600.  Canon improved saturation number  significantly on 70D compared to 7D. They improved further on 7D2. Unfortunately RN numbers at low ISO went up on 70D and 7D2. Not sure what happened there. Otherwise, we could have seen improvement in DR number for low ISO as well on new 20mpx sensor.
Not sure how accurate are these numbers. If you check 600d saturation number, which is higher than every other camera with 18mpx sensor. Even higher than 7D.  May be that is the reason 600d so much popular and Canon kept on making them.

Something is wrong with most of the sensorgen data. When they put the site up again something got garbled with teh data translation. I mean they have some old nikon DSLR that have better than 100% photon collection efficiency  ;D ::).

Lenses / Re: Review: Sensor Performance of the 7D Mark II
« on: December 03, 2014, 01:28:53 PM »
Do keep in mind that his 'very' extensive sensor review basically skips over 50% of the stuff that people have most often found fault with Canon sensors over the last near decade. He did cover banding, which is much improved, but didn't really get into low ISO DR and totally glossed that Canon bugaboo over completely.

It is great to see it's super polished up for astro high iso long exposure and regarding banding though.  :D

But it's a bit disingenuous that he totally ignores what most of the sensor complaint talk on the net is about and tries to play it off as if it was just poor exposure in low light and such and for this site to then go on and make it sound as if it's the all-around every which way best sensor ever made by anyone.

We must remember that recently launched another competitor, the Canon 24-105 STM, when the market was already flooded with 24-105L.

In this current scenario, it is difficult to sell many units of the Sigma 24-105, because the quality does not exceed the Canon L, and the price does not match the Canon STM. ::)

Maybe Sigma had some information (wrong?) that Canon would stop manufacturing 24-105L, and such a thing was not confirmed. ??? :-\

The quality DOES exceed the Canon, no one ever said it does not, they just disagree in varying amounts

But not than the 24-70 f/4 IS which doesn't cost that much more.

I think there is little doubt the Sigma holds an edge at a few points, notably the 24mm range, and the 75-85mm f/4, an odd gap in both the Canon and Nikkor lenses. Still, the biggest problems are:

1) Weight! Frankly at 2 pounds or 880g this is a heavy lens and is roughly 200g heavier than the rivals. For the super primes they put out, where it is quality above all, this might be acceptable, but for a do-it-all lens that is designed to be taken everywhere always, it is a problem. In fact, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II is 10% lighter even.

2) No weather sealing. For the same reason as above, for a lens that is designed to be your everyday lens taken everywhere, this is a rather serious oversight.

3) Price. The rivals may not meet it for sharpness at all points, but overall it is not so clear cut so the higher price compared to the kit lenses is impossible to justify. Sure at MSRP it looks good, but both Nikkor and Canon can be purchased for $700 or so, which is $200 cheaper. The Nikkor may lose in sharpness a bit, but it has weather sealing, greater reach, and is lighter and cheaper. The Canon has weather sealing, is in between the Nikkor and Sigma in sharpness, is built like a tank, and is the lightest and cheapest.

The 24-105L can be found for $600 and the 24-70 f/4 IS for not that much mroe than the sigma. Unless you MUST have 71-105mm I can't see getting Sigma over the 24-70 f/4 IS since the 24-70 f/4 IS is much better stopped down for landscapes at the wide end, better at long end too for that and as good everywhere else other than maybe right at 50mm wide open and it's so much smaller and lighter.

View your photos on a 4K TV 65 inches, will be a similar experience to see your photos on your computer monitor with display at 100%. ???

Image detail will be evident, but chromatic aberration, camera shake, and other photo imperfections will also be obvious. :-X In practice, you can change your mind, and think that your lenses are now not as sharp as you thought they were. :-\

In practice higher res displays actually tend to HIDE lens defects and sensor noise more in many cases (although focusing issues of certain types show up more).

So, I just got my Sigma 50 mm 1.4 Art lens and I'm comparing it to my Sigma 24-105 mm Art lens. And, honestly for $900, the difference is really minimal, and after you run it through just the most basic default DxO program, the difference almost completely disappears. I knew the 24-105mm was good, but thought I'd see a bigger difference. So, I was starting to agree with Ken Rockwell on equipment specifications. But, this weekend, I did something I almost never do, which is go out retail shopping, or at least window shopping, specifically to see what my pics would look like on a 4K screen. I put a couple of photographs on a thumb drive, and went to Best Buy, and plugged it into a couple of 4K TV's, including a Sony 65 inch X950B. Oh, my stars, you want to see something that makes an enormous difference in what you see in your photographs, try doing that! Not only was I able to see the intricacies in the grain on this table, I was able to see the *dust* on the table. It looked like I was looking at the table in real life, like I could reach out and touch it. I've spent a lot of money in the last 10 months on new camera stuff. Canon 6D, Canon 300mm 2.8 ii, 70-200mm 2.8 ii, Sigma Art lenses, wide-angles, teleconverters, etc. And, while the 300mm 2.8 is
*slightly* better than the 70-200 mm with 1.4 TC, for most photography,
(with objects not in the same focal plane being slightly out of focus), there
wasn't all that much difference. But, I can tell you, that without a doubt the
absolute biggest difference in looking at my photographs I have seen this year is *not* which lens I am using, it was this TV/monitor. And I haven't been using a bad monitor, a
one-year-old top-of-the-line Dell XPS 17 inch laptop, and, at home, a Samsung 55
inch 1080p 18-month-old TV. So, it now seems, if you've got an 18MP (or better) DSLR camera anything above, say, a T4i, and any fairly recent Canon L lenses, you don't need new camera equipment, you need a Sony 4K monitor (the Samsung, Sharp and LG had a tendency to blow out the highlights a wee bit). But, with the Sony, I was simply stunned. It was almost like the first time I saw a plasma TV 15 years ago. Now, I'd like to see what the difference between my Sigma 50 1.4 Art and Sigma 24-105 Art is like on the Sony TV...

I could not possibly agree more. In fact, as soon as the title, I was going to mentiona 4k/UHD screen and was pleasantly surprised to see that you beat me to it.

The best photographic gear purchase I have made in years is not any lens or body but my 24" UHD UP2414Q!
Suddenly you get 24" 8MP wide gamut prints instantly and free!
And they are coming out with 27" 14MP wide gamut pro screen soon too! (although the price on those might be a bit much for the first 12 months)

All too often people spend $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on this lens or that for a little bit micro-contrast or this and that and $$$$ on bodies but then when it comes to actually viewing anything they shoot they suddenly go crazy if someone suggests spending more than $ and want to use some 1024x768 TN panel and maybe make a few 3x5" prints here and there. I'm not sure that makes any sense really.

I'd almost start with the monitor and then spend whatever is left on the camera gear itself, certainly now that we are into the 8-14MP displays era.

Probably Sigma 24-105 does not sell as well as expected. They should concentrate on the manufacture of 35 and 50 Art, which seem to disappear from the shelves quickly.

Possibly. At least for the Canon mount it never really made any sense.
It came out right when:

Canon 24-105L were being let go for a fire sale, plus the Canon was lighter, by a lot.

The Canon 24-70 f/4 IS came out and had better IQ and was vastly smaller and lighter and had much better macro too.

Now the Canon 24-105 variable non-L is coming out and it should also be less expensive, better and lighter (if variable aperture).

Heck, if weight and size matter, the Tamron 24-70 VC 2.8 and Canon 24-70 II 2.8 are the same size and weight as the Sigma but offer f/2.8 and much better IQ (although cost more and way more).

Maybe it made some sense for Nikon, but perhaps that was not enough?

EOS Bodies / Re: Another 50mp FF DSLR Mention [CR2]
« on: November 25, 2014, 01:47:26 PM »
Thank you for pointing outside of in certain select situations, such as sports and wildlife photography, there's no reason to buy Canon.

Other situations may also include (a) spontaneous photos of active kids (b) macro photos of relatively active insects (e.g. in the summer or tropical countries). Personally, MILC offerings do not offer the solutions I want either because of the response time of EVF or limited macro lens solutions (let me know when you find a MILC macro lens with equivalent f > 150 mm).

So, apart from relatively inactive subjects and landscape photos, I cannot find enough reasons to buy non-Canikon stuff.

haha, and so it goes.

Everyone keeps saying "but what about the Canon camera system." Less than 10% of the marketplace buys into that. Less than 10%.

What about those macro or TS/E lenses?

They're niche products. Regular people taking regular photographs are not likely to be interested. So too are the big, fast, primes/zooms. When it comes to units moved, they're niche products compared to the mass market for DSLR gear.

So for the vast majority of DSLR owners, there is no benefit from the "camera system", be it Canon, Nikon, Samsung or Sony.

What's important is that first camera body and lens and the most likely resultant impact of that is that some number of years later, good/bad experience with that camera and lens may influence further buying decisions.

Well Canon does have the nicest 24-70 2.8, 24-70 f/4 IS and 70-300 too. (perhaps this also goes for the 100-400, although I guess Nikon did come out with some sort of 80-400 relatively recently, don't know much about it though)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 271